PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1455356

[Ceramic brackets].

Abstract

Because of the many drawbacks of the hard and brittle material, ceramic brackets should not be used uncritically for orthodontic treatments. If ceramic brackets are used, the following guidelines should be observed: 1. If large and complicated tooth movements are involved, conventional bracket systems should be considered. 2. Occlusion on ceramic brackets is to be avoided. 3. Sharp instruments should be used with extreme care to avoid scratching the ceramic surface. Metal ligatures must not be used. 4. The length of the treatment is extended, probably because of the increased friction. 5. The problems connected with removing the brackets have not yet been solved. Be particularly careful of weakened teeth. 6. Esthetically, ceramic brackets function satisfactorily, but transparent elastic ligatures do not. They rapidly become discoloured and need frequent replacement. Nor are there as yet any "invisible arch wires", apart from some few, extremely flexible "white" arch wires. The ceramic bracket has no doubt come to stay, but there have been many difficulties in the "running-in" period, and the problems are far from solved yet. New ceramic brackets are coming onto the market all the time, and only future clinical studies can show whether they will become a genuine alternative to the conventional bracket.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Mølsted. 1992. [Ceramic brackets].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1455356/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Metal-ceramic bridges from commercial dental laboratories: alloy composition, cost and quality of fit.

The quality of construction of fixed bridge prostheses directly affects their long-term survival. The cost, alloy composition and marginal fit of bridges made by 30 commercial dental laboratories is assessed. Duplicate models of a three unit bridge preparation were sent to 30 different laboratories, as if required for a patient receiving treatment under the General Dental Service. Material was sent via general dental practitioners, requesting metal-ceramic bridges made from 45% Au alloy, precious metal or non-precious metal. Proximal contacts were overbuilt at 65% of sites and pontic tissue contacts were excessive in all but one bridge. Eight laboratories did not use alloys corresponding to the request made. The mean marginal gaps of non-precious metal bridges (145 microns) were significantly greater than those for 45% gold alloy (106 microns). Marginal fit was poor and a number of factors have been observed, with other postulated, which may have contributed to this problem.

Ceramics