Surface treated polycrystalline ceramic orthodontic bracket and method of making same

An orthodontic bracket for coupling an archwire with a tooth. The orthodontic bracket including a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body including an archwire slot that is configured to receive the archwire therein. The CIM bracket body including a polycrystalline ceramic. A coating of alumina or silicon dioxide is in continuous and direct contact with at least the surfaces of the archwire slot. The orthodontic bracket is characterized by unexpectedly high torque strength. The ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body may include a polycrystalline ceramic having a grain size distribution characterized by an average grain size in the range of larger than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm such that the orthodontic bracket is also characterized by unexpectedly high fracture toughness. A method of making the orthodontic bracket includes injection molding a bracket using a ceramic powder, sintering the molded bracket, and coating the ceramic injection molded bracket.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The invention relates generally to orthodontic brackets and, more particularly, to surface treated polycrystalline ceramic orthodontic brackets.

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic brackets represent a principal component of corrective orthodontic treatments devoted to improving a patient's occlusion. In conventional orthodontic treatments, an orthodontist affixes brackets to the patient's teeth and engages an archwire into a slot of each bracket. The archwire applies corrective pressures that coerce misaligned teeth to move into orthodontically correct positions. Ligatures, such as small elastomeric O-rings or fine metal wires, are employed to retain the archwire within each bracket slot. Alternatively, self-ligating orthodontic brackets have been developed that eliminate the need for ligatures. Instead of using ligatures, self-ligating brackets rely on a movable latch or slide to captivate the archwire within the bracket slot.

Conventional orthodontic brackets are ordinarily formed from stainless steel, which is strong, nonabsorbent, weldable, and relatively easy to form and machine. Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment using metal orthodontic brackets, however, may be embarrassed by the visibility of the metal brackets, which makes treatment obvious even to a casual observer, and, more importantly, is not cosmetically pleasing. To improve the cosmetic appearance, certain orthodontic brackets utilize a bracket body made of a transparent or translucent non-metallic material, such as a polymer resin or a ceramic. The transparent or translucent nature of the bracket may allow the color or shade of the underlying tooth to show through the bracket. For this reason, and as compared to metallic brackets, transparent or translucent brackets are less noticeable and are, therefore, more desirable.

While surpassing metallic brackets aesthetically, ceramic brackets are known to fracture more easily than metal brackets, which are more likely to deform rather than failing catastrophically. Consequently, there is a need for a ceramic bracket that has a greater resistance to tensile and flexural stresses and overcomes other deficiencies of known ceramic brackets.

SUMMARY

To these ends, in one embodiment of the invention, an orthodontic bracket for coupling an archwire with a tooth comprises a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body that is configured to be mounted to the tooth and that includes an archwire slot that is configured to receive the archwire therein. The CIM bracket body comprises a polycrystalline ceramic and a first coating of alumina or silicon dioxide in continuous and direct contact with at least a portion of the CIM bracket body, including the surfaces of the archwire slot.

In another embodiment, an orthodontic bracket for coupling an archwire with a tooth comprises a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body configured to be mounted to the tooth and that includes an archwire slot that is configured to receive the archwire therein. The CIM bracket body comprises a polycrystalline ceramic and a first coating consisting essentially of alumina in contact with at least a portion of the CIM bracket body, including the surfaces of the archwire slot.

In another embodiment, an orthodontic bracket for coupling an archwire with a tooth comprises a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body that is configured to be mounted to the tooth and that includes an archwire slot that is configured to receive the archwire therein. The CIM bracket body comprises a polycrystalline ceramic having a grain size distribution characterized by an average grain size in the range of larger than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm, and a first coating of alumina or silicon dioxide in continuous and direct contact with at least a portion of the CIM bracket body, including the surfaces of the archwire slot.

In another embodiment of the invention, a method of manufacturing an orthodontic bracket for coupling an archwire with a tooth comprises providing a mixture of a ceramic powder and a binder; injecting the mixture into a mold cavity to form a molded bracket body; heating the molded bracket body to substantially remove the binder from the molded bracket body; sintering the molded bracket body to form a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body that is configured to be mounted to the tooth; forming an archwire slot in the CIM bracket body that is configured to receive the archwire therein; and forming a coating of alumina or silicon dioxide in continuous and direct contact with the CIM bracket body over at least a portion of the CIM bracket body, including the archwire slot.

In yet another embodiment, an orthodontic bracket for coupling an archwire with a tooth comprises a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body that is configured to be mounted to the tooth and that includes an archwire slot that is configured to receive the archwire therein. The CIM bracket body comprises a polycrystalline ceramic having a grain size distribution characterized by an average grain size in the range of larger than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm, and a coating of a ceramic in continuous and direct contact with at least a portion of the CIM bracket body, including the surfaces of the archwire slot.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

An exemplary orthodontic bracket10according to one embodiment of the present invention is depicted inFIG. 1. The orthodontic bracket10comprises a ceramic injection molded (CIM) bracket body12comprising a polycrystalline ceramic and a coating14of alumina (Al2O3), silicon dioxide (SiO2), zirconia (ZrO2) or another ceramic, such as another oxide, nitride, or boride, covering at least a portion of the CIM bracket body12. The inventors have discovered that the coating14unexpectedly improves the torque strength of the CIM bracket body12and counteracts the effects of unique surface defects associated with ceramic injection molding process that are not typically encountered through other manufacturing methods. The coating14is described in more detail below.

The orthodontic bracket10may also include a movable closure member coupled to the CIM bracket body12. The movable closure member may include a ligating slide16or other mechanical latch coupled with the CIM bracket body12. The ligating slide16may be movable between an open position, as shown inFIG. 1, and a closed position (not shown). While a self-ligating bracket is depicted inFIG. 1, embodiments of the present invention are not limited to self-ligating brackets but are equally applicable to various other types of orthodontic brackets including tiewing-type orthodontic brackets (i.e., those that require ligatures) known in the art of orthodontic treatment.

With reference toFIG. 1, the CIM bracket body12includes an archwire slot18formed therein and adapted to receive an archwire20(shown in phantom line) for applying corrective forces to the teeth when the CIM bracket body12is secured to a patient's tooth. When mounted to the labial surface of a tooth carried on the patient's upper jaw, the CIM bracket body12has a lingual side22, an occlusal side24, a gingival side26, a mesial side28, a distal side30, and a labial side32. The lingual side22of the CIM bracket body12is configured to be secured to the tooth in any conventional manner, such as by an appropriate orthodontic cement or adhesive or by a band around an adjacent tooth (not shown). The lingual side22may further be provided with a pad33that defines a bonding base34adapted to be secured to the surface of the tooth. The CIM bracket body12includes a base surface36and a pair of opposed slot surfaces38,40projecting labially from the base surface36that collectively define the archwire slot18extending in a mesial-distal direction from mesial side28to distal side30.

Accordingly, with reference toFIG. 1and in one embodiment of the present invention, the coating14covers at least the surfaces36,38, and40of the archwire slot18. The coating14may be placed, however, on other surfaces, such as any one or more of sides22,24,26,28,30and32, of the CIM bracket body12. For example, the coating14may be placed on those surfaces that experience contact with the archwire20, on regions of the CIM bracket body12where defects from the injection molding process are known to occur, and/or on surfaces that experience tensile stresses during use or installation. Alternatively, the coating14may coat substantially all visible surfaces of the CIM bracket body12. It will be appreciated that placement of the coating14may depend on the process used to form the coating14.

As provided above, the CIM bracket body12is formed by a ceramic injection molding process, as is known in the art, and may be made by ceramic injection molders, such as Tosoh Corporation, Toyko, Japan, and Ceradyne Inc., Costa Mesa, Calif. For example, the CIM bracket body12may be made by mixing a ceramic powder, such as alumina powder, with one or more binders to form a paste or thick slurry. The binder (for example, a thermoplastic or thermosetting polymer or a wax) may be formulated to facilitate both flow of the paste during injection and burnout or removal during a subsequent de-binding or presintering operation. The paste may be heated to between 100° C. and 200° C. prior to injection. A high-pressure hydraulic press may be used to inject the heated paste into a mold cavity at pressures up to 100 MPa, though more or less pressure may be used depending on the viscosity of the paste, powder type, and other process factors. The mold cavity at least partially corresponds to the shape of CIM bracket body12adjusted to account for shrinkage, if any, during a subsequent sintering operation. In addition, the archwire slot18may be fully formed, partially formed, or unformed by the mold cavity.

Following injection molding, the molded CIM bracket body is subject to heating to temperatures known in the art to remove the binders. For example, for alumina, binder removal may occur at temperatures of between 200° C. to 700° C. Following binder removal, the molded CIM bracket body may be presintered by further heating. Presintering high purity alumina (about 99.95 wt. % alumina) may occur at temperatures between 900° C. and 1200° C. Following presintering, the presintered CIM bracket body12is sintered. The sintering temperature may be between 1400° C. and 1800° C. depending, for example, on the particle size distribution of the starting powder, other process factors, and the grain size distribution of the polycrystalline ceramic, which is described in more detail below. In other embodiments, the presintered injection molded CIM body may be hot isostatically pressed (HIPed) at pressures of 68 MPa to 207 MPa while at temperatures of between 1300° C. and 1600° C., as is known in the art. It will be appreciated that HIPing may be utilized in addition to the sintering operation. Following sintering and/or HIPing, the CIM bracket body12comprises a polycrystalline ceramic characterized by a distribution of grains. In one embodiment, the polycrystalline ceramic comprises alumina having a grain size distribution characterized by an average grain size in a range of larger than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm. As is described below, the polycrystalline ceramic having an average grain size in this range exhibits unexpectedly high fracture toughness.

In one embodiment, following sintering and/or HIPing, the CIM bracket body12is annealed, i.e., heated to a temperature and held for a time sufficient to further modify the grain size distribution. Modification of the grains size distribution may occur at temperatures of about 1300° C. or higher. However, higher or lower temperatures than 1300° C. may modify the grain size distribution depending on the time the CIM bracket body12is held at the annealing temperature. By way of example, the CIM bracket body12may be held at about 1300° C. for about 1 hour. In addition, the bracket body may be heated in a variety of atmospheres including, for example, hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar).

Subsequent to the operations set forth above, in instances where the archwire slot18is only partially formed or is not formed by the injection molding process, a grinding operation is required to fully form the archwire slot18in the CIM bracket body12. By way of example and not limitation, the archwire slot18may be ground with a 240/320 mesh diamond impregnated wheel.

While ceramic injection molding is an economical process for forming complex shapes, like orthodontic brackets, it causes defects that are unique among ceramic powder forming operations. The defects may be the result of poor mixing, poor pressure or temperature control during injection, mold design, or defects in the mold from operational wear, among others. Examples of surface defects associated with ceramic injection molding are depicted inFIGS. 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. The defects include, but are not limited to, localized powder/binder density variations in the CIM bracket body12that may cause surface imperfections, such as blisters, in the binder rich areas. Blisters often burst during the binder burnout operation leaving surface defects, as shown inFIG. 2A. By way of additional example,FIG. 2Billustrates the bottom edge of a surface of an archwire slot that has multiple defects. Similarly,FIG. 2Cillustrates other defects in the archwire slot, andFIG. 2D, which was taken at lower magnification, illustrates the prevalence of defects in the surfaces of an archwire slot. Other defects include cracks, pores, or both cracks and pores. These defects may be the result of tool wear, sticking between the binder and the mold surface, or blisters to name only a few. In some cases, the powder/binder density variations cause inhomogeneous areas that create residual stresses in the CIM bracket body12that are subsequently relieved by microcracking.

The defects are particularly problematic when they occur in or around the archwire slot18, as shown inFIGS. 2A-2D, or in high tensile stress areas. One skilled in the art will appreciate that to correct misalignment of a tooth, the archwire20may apply torque to the CIM bracket body12to urge the tooth to its orthodontically correct position. The torque from the archwire20forms tensile stresses in the orthodontic bracket10. The tensile stresses are magnified by the presence of the defects described above. If the tensile stresses, when magnified by any single defect, exceeds the strength of the ceramic bracket, the ceramic bracket fractures. Typically, ceramic brackets fail at stress levels far below what would be predicted based on the ceramic material's theoretical strength.

In an effort to address the problems associated specifically with bracket bodies made by ceramic injection molding, the inventors have discovered that the coating14on a portion of the CIM bracket body12, including the surfaces36,38, and40of the archwire slot18, unexpectedly improves the torque strength of the orthodontic bracket10. In particular, the orthodontic bracket10of the present invention is characterized by higher torque strengths than a bracket body of same design without the coating14. By way of example only, an improvement in torque strength over an as-molded bracket body may be at least approximately 5%; in a further example, the improvement in torque strength may be at least approximately 20%; and, in a further example may be at least approximately 60%. Advantageously, the orthodontic bracket10is less likely to fail during handling, installation, or, more importantly, during clinical use. The risk of ingestion or inhalation of the fractured bracket by a patient is therefore less; the patient endures fewer, if any, bracket replacements; and orthodontic treatment proceeds more quickly. In addition, the orthodontic bracket10is aesthetically pleasing such that the patient is less self-conscious during treatment.

In one embodiment, the coating14is amorphous (an amorphous material lacks long range order in the atomic structure and is not characterized by sharply defined x-ray diffraction peaks). Rather than being amorphous, in another embodiment, the coating14comprises nanocrystals, which may measure only two or three unit cells across but are generally less than 100 nm across any one dimension. In one embodiment, the coating14comprises crystals such that the microstructure of the coating14is finer than the microstructure of the CIM bracket body12. By way of example, the average size of the crystals in the coating14may be less than an average grain size of the CIM bracket body12. In one embodiment, the coating14comprises high purity alumina or silicon dioxide. The crystals or nanocrystals of alumina or silicon dioxide are not contained, even in part, by a matrix of another material, like a glass matrix. Instead, the alumina or silicon dioxide in the form of nanocrystals or in amorphous form is in continuous and direct communication with the CIM bracket body12. Furthermore, in another embodiment, a coating14of alumina is at least about 87.5 wt. % alumina. In a further example, the alumina is at least about 99 wt. % alumina. In yet another example, the alumina is at least about 99.5 wt. % alumina. In one embodiment, the coating14consists essentially of alumina. As used herein, “consisting essentially of” means that no other elements are intentionally added to the coating14. However, impurity content of other elements from the raw materials or the fabrication process may be contemplated.

In one embodiment, the coating14may be a thin film of alumina or silicon dioxide formed by vapor depositing the coating14. The vapor deposited coating may be formed by film deposition techniques known in the art, such as physical vapor deposition (PVD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD), although other film deposition techniques may be equally suitable.

The coating14has a thickness from a few angstroms (e.g., two or three primitive unit cells of alumina or silicon dioxide thick) to about 15 μm or may be other thicknesses that do not detract from the appearance of the CIM bracket body12while providing improved torque strength. For example, the coating14may be of minimal thickness to produce a continuous coating taking into account the surface roughness of the CIM bracket body12. Specifically, if the surface roughness of the CIM bracket body12is 0.1 μm Ra then the coating thickness may be, on average, about 0.1 μm thick or slightly thicker to form a continuous coating across the surface of the CIM bracket body12. In a further example, the coating thickness may be between about 1 μm and about 2 μm thick, and, in another example, the coating14is about 1.5 μm thick.

With reference toFIG. 3, in another embodiment, additional coatings are formed on the coating14to create a multilayer coating42on the CIM bracket body12. For example, a second coating44may be formed over at least a portion of the coating14by similar methods used to form the coating14, described above. In one embodiment shown inFIG. 3, the second coating44is in continuous and direct communication with the coating14. The second coating44may be a ceramic, such as alumina, another transparent oxide, nitride, or boride that adheres to the coating14. Alternatively, the second coating44may be a material that is not inherently transparent or translucent but has a thickness that is sufficiently thin to make the multilayer coating42comprising the second coating44readily transparent or translucent. The second coating44may range from a few angstroms thick to about 15 μm thick. In a further example, the second coating44may be between about 1 μm and about 2 μm thick, or, in yet another example, about 1.5 μm thick.

As is depicted inFIG. 3, in another embodiment, a third coating46may be formed on at least a portion of the second coating44. The third coating46may be the same material as the second coating44or the coating14, or the third coating46may be a different ceramic that adheres to the second coating44and any portion of the coating14and the CIM bracket body12that are not covered by the second coating44. Rather than being substantially the same thickness (as shown inFIG. 3), the individual coatings14,44,46may be different thicknesses. The multilayer coating42, overall, is transparent or translucent such that the aesthetic characteristics of the bracket may not be compromised by the multilayer coating42. While the multilayer coating42is depicted as comprising three layers, persons skilled in the art will appreciate that additional layers may be added according to the principles described herein.

Additional layers that form the multilayer coating42, as shown inFIG. 3, may be achieved, for example, by rotating the CIM bracket body12having any previously applied coating out of one coating process and into one or more additional coating process. Alternatively, the multilayer coating42may be formed by pulsing or cycling the power source of the coating process such that one or more additional, discrete layers are formed.

In another embodiment of the invention, a portion of the surface of the CIM bracket body12is removed prior to coating. By way of example, the portion of the surface removed may include all of the visible surfaces of the CIM bracket body12or may include the surfaces within the archwire slot. It is believed that removing the as-formed surface defects from the CIM bracket body12prior to coating the CIM bracket body12will further enhance the torque strength. An improvement in torque strength over an as-molded bracket body may be at least approximately 5%; in a further example, the improvement in torque strength may be at least approximately 20%; and, in a further example, may be at least approximately 60%. The depth removed is sufficient to remove the defects associated with injection molding and any subsequent processes that are described above. In one embodiment, up to about 15 μm of the surface of the CIM bracket body12is removed prior to coating. Removing a portion of the surface may include grinding, etching the surface with a plasma source, etching the surface with an acid (for example, phosphoric, sulfuric, or another acid capable of etching a ceramic material), ion milling the surface, or melting the surface with a laser, or a combination thereof.

In yet another embodiment, the surface of the CIM bracket body12may be treated by bombarding the surface with ions. Ion bombardment may occur following removing a portion of the surface of the CIM bracket body12or prior to coating an as-molded surface. Ion bombardment may include metal ion bombardment to implant ions into the surface of the CIM bracket body12or may include mixed metal ion bombardment followed by noble gas ion bombardment. It is believed that implanting ions into the surface via one or more of the previous processes will impart a compressive residual stress in the surface of the CIM bracket body12. Torque strength may be observed to increase by at least approximately 5% over an as-molded bracket body; in a further example, the improvement in torque strength may be at least approximately 20%; and, in a further example, may be at least approximately 60% over an as-molded bracket body. Without intending to be bound by theory and with reference toFIG. 1, the inventors believe that the coating14of alumina or silicon oxide unexpectedly improves the average torque strength of the CIM bracket body12because the coating14lowers friction between the archwire20and the archwire slot18and prevents the archwire20from abrading or digging into the CIM bracket body12at any single location or along a line within the archwire slot18. This minimizes the potential for inducing microcracks in the CIM bracket body12. Further, the coating14may prevent surface flaws (for example, those shown inFIGS. 2A-2D) in the surface of the CIM bracket body12from opening when subject to tensile loading. The coating14may also form compressive stresses in the surface of the CIM bracket body12. Therefore, tensile stresses generated by torque from the archwire20must first overcome the compressive stresses induced in the surface before a net tensile stress is experienced in the surface of the CIM bracket body12.

In some instances, stresses may be diverted to the coating14such that cracks that do form are more likely to form at the surface of the coating14rather than in the CIM bracket body12. Cracks that do initiate at the surface of the coating14are thought to travel to the interface between the coating14and the CIM bracket body12where they are deflected. By deflecting the crack, the crack's length must necessarily increase. By increasing the length of the crack, the tensile stress required to propagate the crack into the CIM bracket body12increases, and as a result, the torque strength is improved. With reference toFIG. 3, if multiple coating layers are used, the crack propagation pathway48may be further extended, not only by the thickness of each layer but also by the tendency of the crack to propagate along the interface between each layer as shown.

In order to facilitate a more complete understanding of the invention, the following non-limiting examples are provided.

EXAMPLES

Sample brackets of two different self-ligating bracket designs (Mold A and Mold C, respectively) were purchased from Tosoh Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. Two different polycrystalline alumina compositions were used to mold the Mold A and Mold C brackets. One of the alumina compositions from Tosoh Corporation was identified with the designation PXA-800-A (hereinafter “#1 alumina composition”) and the other was identified as PXA-801-A (hereinafter “#2 alumina composition”). The known difference between the two alumina compositions is the binder/powder ratio used during the ceramic injection molding process. The #2 alumina composition had more binder than the #1 alumina composition. In addition to specifying the alumina composition (i.e., #1 alumina composition or #2 alumina composition) from which to form the brackets, the desired average grain size of the microstructure of the brackets was also specified. By way of example only and not limitation, the microstructure of the outer surface of the CIM bracket body received from Tosoh is shown inFIG. 4Aand the internal microstructure of the CIM bracket body is shown inFIG. 4B. A portion of the as-received brackets were subject to further surface treatment as described below and were grouped accordingly. The torque strength of each bracket was measured as follows.

With reference toFIG. 5A, each sample bracket50, following surface treatment, if any, was individually attached to a one-half inch steel ball bearing52(the surface of the steel ball was etched prior to attachment) with an adhesive (for example, Loctite® 480, P/N 48040, Henkel Loctite Corporation, Rocky Hill, Conn.). The assembly of the bearing52and sample bracket50, was sprayed with an accelerator (for example, Loctite® 712) to fully cure the adhesive. A rectangular archwire54(for example, a 0.018 inch by 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire, Ormco Part No. 254-1825, or a 0.0215 inch by 0.028 inch stainless steel archwire, Ormco Part No. 254-1528) was cut into 1-inch lengths for use with the brackets. Other archwires of different dimensions were also used as indicated below. The self-ligating feature of each bracket was removed. The cut archwire of appropriate size was inserted into the archwire slot of each sample bracket50. Each archwire54was ligated to a bracket with an elastomeric o-ring, namely a Molded Power “O” (0.110 inch) from Ormco Corporation (Ormco Part No. 640-0074) using an elastic positioner (Ormco Part No. 801-0039) taking care to avoid a loose fit between the archwire and archwire slot. In other words, the archwire was selected to fit snuggly, but still seat, within the archwire slot.

With reference toFIGS. 5A and 5B, the ligated archwire54of the sample bracket50attached to the ball bearing52was engaged with a torque arm56for torque strength measurement on an Instron 5542. As shown inFIG. 5A, the gingival side of the bracket50was oriented to face in an upward manner to couple with the torque arm56. The torque arm56, as shown inFIGS. 5B and 5C, was a steel bar with a forked end57having notches in both the vertical direction for clearance around the bracket50and in the horizontal direction to allow it to engage the archwire54that protrudes from each side of the sample bracket50. To accommodate the different archwire sizes, a number of torque arms, each having a different horizontal notch size, were used. The horizontal notch in the forked end57was sized to accommodate one archwire size (e.g., to accommodate 0.019 inch by 0.025 inch, 0.021 inch by 0.028 inch, or 0.021 inch by 0.025 inch archwires). However, the other dimensions of the torque arm remained the same. Each torque arm56was approximately 1.6 inches (4.06 cm) long from the forked end57to a torque arm pivot62where the load is to be applied. In addition to the length, the portion of the forked end57to each side of the vertical notch measured 0.150 inches wide, and the vertical notch for clearance around the bracket50measured 0.200 inches wide by 0.150 inches deep. With reference toFIG. 5C, the torque arm56was held in a holding slot of an arm positioner60which cooperates with the Instron 5542. The ball bearing52was clamped in a one-half inch 5C collet (not shown) to hold the torque arm56and arm positioner60horizontally and perpendicular to the direction of load to be applied by the compression ram58of the Instron 5542, as shown inFIG. 5D. With reference toFIG. 5E, the arm positioner60was aligned with torque arm pivot62in a recess64formed in the end of the compression ram58. The Instron 5542 had a ±100N static load cell and was operated with Bluehill 2 software version 2.13.

The torque strength of each sample was measured by displacing the torque arm/arm positioner (at the torque arm pivot62) with the compression ram58at a rate of 20 mm/min. until the sample bracket broke. The average torque strength for each group was calculated from each bracket's load at failure according to the preceding procedure.

The sample brackets of Table 1 were all of one self-ligating bracket design designated “Mold A.” For all of the brackets, the archwire slot corner radius was 0.005 inch.

The Group A, B, and C brackets had a plain base design and were made of the #1 alumina composition. The mold used to form the brackets of Groups A, B, and C was not polished. The archwires ligated to the Group A, B, and C brackets were made of stainless steel and had a cross section of 0.021 inches by 0.028 inches.

The Groups D, E, and F brackets had an oval base design and were formed of the #2 alumina composition. The portion of the mold that formed the archwire slot of the Groups D, E, and F brackets was polished. The archwires used in the Group E brackets were made of stainless steel and had a cross section of 0.021 inches by 0.028 inches. The archwires used in the Groups D, F, and G brackets were also made of stainless steel but measured 0.019 inches by 0.025 inches.

As noted in Table 1, the brackets of Groups A and D were tested in the as-molded condition, that is, they were not subject to any subsequent surface machining, etching, or coating processes.

The sample brackets of Group B were etched with a supersaturated sodium tetra-borate solution. The sample brackets etched with the supersaturated sodium tetra-borate solution were submersed in the solution for at least 30 seconds to a few minutes. The sample brackets were then heated at about 15° C./minute to a temperature between about 850° C. and about 900° C. and held in that temperature range for between 15 and 30 minutes.

The sample brackets of Group C and F were coated with a PVD radio frequency (RF) sputtered alumina having a thickness of about 1 μm to about 2 μm over the visible surfaces of the bracket, including the archwire slot. X-ray diffraction analysis of some of the coatings was inconclusive as to whether the coatings were amorphous or crystalline. According to the X-ray diffraction data, some of the coatings were amorphous while another exhibited some crystallinity, which indicates that the coatings may be borderline crystalline or may have both amorphous and crystalline regions. It was noted that the x-ray diffraction peaks were relatively broad, like that of an amorphous material, indicating that the coatings may contain very fine crystalline grains.

The sample brackets of Group E were ground with 240/320 grit diamond wheel to remove the as-molded surface of the bracket to a depth sufficient to remove defects associated with the injection molding and sintering processes outlined above.

The sample brackets of Group G were coated with three layers of a PVD RF sputtered alumina each of approximately equal thickness (about 1 μm to about 2 μm each).

As indicated by the data in Table 1, for the #1 alumina composition, the torque strength for the alumina coated sample brackets according to one embodiment of the present invention exhibited an average torque strength of about 1.36N (Group C), which represents a significant improvement in average torque strength, namely an increase of about 7.1% compared to about 1.27N for the as-molded brackets (Group A) and an improvement of about 4.6% compared to about 1.30N for etched brackets of (Group B).

In a further example, for the #2 alumina composition, the sample brackets according to one embodiment of the invention (Group F) had an average torque strength of about 1.64N which was an improvement in torque strength over both the as-mold brackets of Group D, which had an average torque strength of about 1.11N, and the diamond finished brackets of Group E, which had an average torque strength of about 1.39N. Thus, the coated brackets (Group F) according to one embodiment of the present invention were characterized by an unexpected increase in average torque strength of at least approximately 47.7% over as-molded brackets (Group D) and at least approximately 18.0% over diamond finished brackets (Group E).

With reference now to Table 2, torque strengths of a different self-ligating bracket design (Mold C) were also measured. All of the sample brackets were of a plain base design and the mold used to form each of the brackets was polished prior to making the brackets. The archwire slot corner radius was as molded with a radius of 0.005 inches.

Brackets of Groups H, I, and J were ceramic injection molded of the #1 alumina composition. The archwire used for brackets in Group H, I, and J was made of stainless steel each having a cross section of 0.021 inches by 0.025 inches.

Brackets of Groups K, L, and M were ceramic injection molded of the #2 alumina composition. The archwire used for brackets in Groups K, L, and M was also made of stainless steel but each had a cross section of 0.019 inches by 0.025 inches.

Table 2 provides average torque strength data for the samples measured in the as-molded condition, following etching with a supersaturated sodium borate solution, and following coating with alumina, as described above in conjunction with Table 1.

For the Mold C bracket design made of the #1 alumina composition, the improvement in average torque strength between brackets with an alumina coating according to one embodiment of the present invention (Group I) and the as-molded brackets (Group H) is at least approximately 31.4%. In addition, the alumina coated brackets (Group I) exhibited an improvement in torque strength of at least approximately 39.4% over the etched brackets (Group J).

Similarly, for brackets made of the #2 alumina composition, the alumina coated brackets of Group L according to one embodiment of the present invention have an average torque strength that is at least approximately 59.7% greater than the average torque strength of the as-molded brackets of Group K. The average torque strength of the alumina coated brackets of Group L is at least approximately 60.9% greater than the etched brackets of Group M.

As provided above, the improvement in torque strength of the orthodontic bracket10over the as-formed brackets, the diamond finished brackets, and the etched brackets is unexpected. It is believed that this unexpected improvement is due in part to deflection of a crack at the coating/CIM bracket body interface, which resulted in an increase in crack length.FIG. 6Adepicts a fracture surface of one embodiment of the orthodontic bracket10. The orthodontic bracket10shown inFIG. 6Awas a bracket from Group I of Table 2—Mold C brackets. As illustrated byFIG. 6A, crack initiation in the coating14appears to have occurred at a location (indicated by an arrow66inFIG. 6A) that is offset from the fracture plane through the CIM bracket body12. Thus, it is believed that the crack was deflected at the coating/CIM bracket body interface such that the crack propagated along the interface to a high stress area at the interface between the coating14and the CIM bracket body12before proceeding through the CIM bracket body12.FIG. 6Billustrates another fracture surface of one embodiment of the orthodontic bracket10. The orthodontic bracket10shown inFIG. 6Bwas a bracket from Group C of Table 1—Mold A brackets. However, in this case, it appears that the crack propagated from the coating14to the underlying CIM bracket body12in a more direct, planar manner.

As introduced above, in one embodiment of the present invention, the CIM bracket body12is made of a polycrystalline ceramic that has a grain size distribution described, in part, by an average grain size in the range of larger than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm. Embodiments of the polycrystalline ceramic having an average grain size in this range are described in U.S. Application No. 61/106,358 titled “Aesthetic Orthodontic Bracket and Method of Making Same” filed on Oct. 17, 2008, the disclosure of which is fully incorporated herein by reference. An average grain size in this range is believed to impart unexpectedly high fracture toughness to the CIM bracket body12. Thus, embodiments of the orthodontic bracket10comprising the CIM bracket body12having an average grain size in this range with the coating14, as set forth above, may have both unexpectedly high fracture toughness and unexpectedly high torque strength.

With regard to fracture toughness, the polycrystalline ceramic exhibits, for example, an average fracture toughness of at least about 3.85 MPa·m1/2and, in a further example, the polycrystalline ceramic having an average grain size between about 4 μm and about 4.3 μm has an average fracture toughness that exceeds about 5.0 MPa·m1/2. In other words, the average fracture toughness is believed to peak somewhere in the range above 3.4 μm and at or below about 6 μm, and most likely in the range of about 3.5 μm to about 5.0 μm.

The average grain size as is recited herein may be determined by measuring a plurality of grain lengths on a polished cross section of the polycrystalline ceramic according to the line intercept method. In particular, the average grain size may be calculated from the grain length measurements according to the equation D=1.56 (L), where D is the average grain size and L is the average length of the grains. The average grain size and grain size distribution may also be determined by using commercially available software, such as analySIS software available from Olympus America Inc., Center Valley, Pa., using the grain size module.

The fracture toughness of the polycrystalline ceramic may be determined by at least two methods. One method uses a three-point bend setup to break a bar of the polycrystalline ceramic that contains a flaw or crack of controlled or known size on one surface. In a three-point bend setup, a bar of the material is supported on one side at two locations along the bar's length. Each location is near one of the bar's edges. The distance between the opposing supports is referred to as the support span. A load is applied to the center of the bar on the surface opposite both the supports and the controlled flaw. The load is gradually increased until the bar fractures. This arrangement (i.e., two supports on one side and a load applied between the supports on the opposing side) produces tensile stresses in the surface of the bar containing the flaw of controlled size.

Samples for three-point bend testing are generally in the form of a rectangular bar. For example, a sample of the polycrystalline ceramic for fracture toughness testing may have a thickness of about 1.00±0.1 mm, a width of about 3.00±0.01 mm, and a length of about 12.00±0.01 mm. In addition, a notch having a depth of about 0.050 mm to about 0.100 mm is cut into one surface of the bar at about the bar's midpoint with a diamond abrasive to form the flaw of controlled size. The bar is placed on a support span, which, for example, may measure about 9 mm. A load is applied on the surface opposite the notch until the bar fractures. The fracture toughness may be calculated from the load at fracture according to the equation:

KIC=(PSwt32)⁢{32⁢(at)12·Y⁡(at)}
where KICis the fracture toughness of the material under a tensile stress that is oriented perpendicular to a crack, P is the load at fracture, S is the support span, w is the bar width, t is the bar thickness, and

Y⁡(at)=1.964-2.837⁢(at)+13.711⁢(at)2-23.250⁢(at)3+24.129⁢(at)4a=a1+a2+a33
where a is the average of three crack length measurements, a1, a2, and a3or is the depth of the crack of known size.

According to another method, fracture toughness can be calculated from Vickers hardness measurements. In this case, the fracture toughness may be calculated according to the following equation,

Kc=0.018⁢(EHV)12⁢(Pc32)
where Kcis the fracture toughness, P is the pressing load, E is the modulus, HV is the measured Vickers hardness, and c is one-half of the average of crack length produced by the Vickers hardness indenter. By using this method, rather than testing a bar of the polycrystalline ceramic, fracture toughness may be measured on a bracket body.

In one embodiment, in addition to the average grain size described above, the polycrystalline ceramic is a mixture of both large and small grains. By way of example, the polycrystalline ceramic having a grain size distribution described by an average grain size in the range of greater than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm may further comprise grains larger than 6 μm in size and grains smaller than 3.4 μm in size.

Furthermore, in one embodiment of the orthodontic bracket10, the CIM bracket body12is a polycrystalline ceramic characterized by a grain size distribution that is not a lognormal distribution. By definition, a lognormal distribution is characterized by a random variable whose logarithm is normally distributed about a mean. As an example, the grain size distribution according of the polycrystalline ceramic is multimodal. In particular, the grain size distribution may be a bimodal distribution.

In one embodiment, the grain size distribution is a bimodal distribution having a first peak or mode between a grain size of about 1 μm and about 5 μm and a second peak or mode at a grain size larger than about 5 μm. By way of example, the second peak may be between about 5.5 μm and about 7 μm. However, it will be appreciated that the second peak or additional peaks may occur at grain sizes larger than 7 μm. It will also be appreciated that the bimodal grain size distribution does not describe a duplex microstructure. In one embodiment, the average fracture toughness for a polycrystalline ceramic having an average grain size in the range of larger than 3.4 μm to about 6 μm and at least a bimodal grain size distribution is greater than about 4.0 MPa·m1/2.

In addition, the inventors have identified that a grain size distribution characterized by having a particular ratio between grains smaller than about 3 μm and larger grains may further enhance resistance to crack propagation. By way of example, the polycrystalline ceramic may have a grain size distribution having up to about 50% of the total number of grains less than about 3 μm in size. By way of further example, the polycrystalline ceramic may have a grain size distribution having the number of grains less than 3 μm in size of at least 10%. In one embodiment, the number of grains less than 3 μm in size is, for example, between about 10% and about 50% of the total number of grains. In yet another example, the polycrystalline ceramic may be characterized by a grain size distribution having up to about 90% of the total number of grains less than about 10 μm in size. In a further example, the total number of grains less than about 10 μm in size is at least 70%. Therefore, in one embodiment the total number of grains less than about 10 μm in size is between about 70% and about 90% of the grains.

In terms of volume fraction, according to one embodiment, the polycrystalline ceramic is characterized by a grain size distribution in which grains larger than 10 μm in size may occupy up to 50% of the total volume. By way of example, in one embodiment, the grains larger than 10 μm in size may be at least 10%, and, in a further example, the grains larger than 10 μm in size may be from about 10% up to 50% of the total volume. The volume fraction of grains larger than about 10 μm can be calculated by determining the volume of the grains of a particular size range, multiplying that volume by the total number of grains in that size range, and then dividing by the total volume of all the grains.

Without intending to be bound by theory, it is thought that the polycrystalline ceramic having a grain size distribution, as described above, lengthens the crack propagation pathway as compared to polycrystalline ceramics having an average grain size outside this range. The grain size distribution is believed to change the direction of a propagating crack and/or to change the mode of crack propagation. In particular, the presence of grain boundaries may affect the crack's propagation direction and/or the crack's mode of propagation. A change in direction and/or change in mode may consume comparatively more energy than the energy required to propagate a crack along a straight path. The mode of crack propagation in polycrystalline ceramics is either intergranular or transgranular or both. Intergranular crack propagation follows the grain boundaries (that is, between grains) while transgranular crack propagation is through the grains. Accordingly, when a propagating crack encounters a grain boundary or a grain, the crack may be forced to change direction, change its mode of propagation (that is, from transgranular to intergranular or vice versa) or change both direction and mode of propagation. By forcing a change in the direction and/or mode of crack propagation, the length of the crack pathway increases, which consumes more energy, and, accordingly, the fracture toughness may increase.

In accordance with changing the mode of crack propagation described above, in one embodiment, the inventors believe that crack propagation through the polycrystalline ceramic may be mixed mode. That is, if a crack propagates into the polycrystalline ceramic, the polycrystalline ceramic may force the crack to change its mode of propagation one time or many times as it proceeds through the polycrystalline ceramic. The presence of grains less than 10 μm in size may foster intergranular crack propagation. But, a crack confronted by a grain 10 μm in size or larger may be forced to change to the transgranular mode of propagation. The mixed mode of crack propagation may, therefore, further lengthen the propagation pathway and, accordingly, further increase fracture toughness of the polycrystalline ceramic.