Bracket for orthodontics comprising a synthetic resin material and production thereof

Abstract: A bracket (1) for orthodontics is formed of a material obtained by polymerizing and setting a mixture comprising by weight 40 - 80% of a multifunctional (meth)acrylate , 9 - 50% of monofunctional (meth)acrylate, 5 - 80% of a filler, and 0.01 - 2% of a polymerization initiator. The body of the bracket (1) has a thin layer of a synthetic resin material (2) which is partly soluble or swellable in a dental adhesive, laminated on the basal surface thereof in such a manner that the materials of the bracket body (1) and the thin layer (2) are mingled at their boundary. The thin layer (2) is formed by polymerizing and setting a mixture, of either (i) 30 - 70% of a monofunctional methacrylate, 30 - 70% of a polymethacrylate or a copolymer thereof, and 0.01 - 1 % of a polymerisation initiator or (ii) 5 - 24% of a multifunctional methacrylate, 0 - 24% of a monofunctional methacrylate, 50 - 90% of a silica filler, and 0.01 - 1% of a polymerization initiator. In embodiment (ii), a silane coupling agent is applied to the thin layer (2) before the bracket is bonded to a tooth with dental adhesive. The brackets have improved physical properties, are asthetically pleasing and the thin layer of resin material (2) provided on their surface enables improved adhesion of the bracket.

Description: The present invention relates to a bracket for orthodontics and, more particularly, to an orthodontic bracket having excellent aesthetic properties and enhanced strength as well as strong adhesion to the tooth. In orthodontic devices for correcting irregularities of teeth, a bracket is used as a means for connecting together a wire and a band. In actual use, the bracket is rigidly secured to the surface of a tooth which is desired to be straightened, in order to apply thereto a flexural or tensile load derived from the wire. For this purpose, metallic brackets have heretofore been generally used, and recently plastics and ceramic brackets have also been put into practical use. Metallic brackets have the advantage that they have superior strength and enable straightening force from a wire or the like to be effectively transmitted to the teeth, but they are inferior in terms of aesthetic properties. On the other hand, ceramic brackets have excellent transparency and therefore are superior from the aesthetic viewpoint, but they are generally considered to be relatively brittle and inferior in terms of adhesive properties. Conventional plastics brackets have superior aesthetic and adhesive properties and therefore widely used for the edgewise method and the like but they are inferior in terms of strength. Conventional plastic brackets suffer from the following clinical problems: (1) the wing portions thereof are readily fractured; (2) these brackets are apt to discolor; (3) the wire is unable to slide smoothly; (4) it is impossible to provide siamese type brackets which can be used for 21|12 ; and (5) it is impossible to provide torque angulation. Plastic brackets which are now widely used are made of thermoplastic polycarbonates. Polycarbonates, which have good transparency and excellent impact resistance, are generally used as engineering plastics. However, brackets made of thermoplastic polycarbonates are insufficient for use in orthodontics because of their relatively low surface hardness and somewhat low mechanical strength (i.e., tensile strength, flexural strength and compressive strength), and therefore the polycarbonate brackets do not necessarily exhibit satisfactory functions as orthodontic devices. Since the surfaces of the plastics brackets are not satisfactorily hard, the bracket surfaces are likely to be scratched by toothbrushes or the like, which leads to wear and contamination (discoloration). In addition, since the mechanical strength of the conventional plastic brackets is inadequate, the wing portions thereof are readily fractured, as described above. Therefore, it is difficult to use such conventional plastics materials to produce brackets having various configurations (i.e., siamese type brackets or brackets provided with torque angulation) which are needed for orthodontics. It should be noted that typical examples of adhesives for orthodontic brackets which may be used to carry out orthodontics include 4-methacryloyloxyethyltrimellitic acid anhydride, methyl methacrylate monomers, mixed compositions of polymethyl methacrylate powders and tributylborane (TBB) [e.g., "Superbond C&B"" (trade name) manufactured by Sun Medical Co., Ltd.), and mixed compositions of methyl methacrylate monomers, BisGMA, BPO and a tertiary amine (redox system type). The present inventors made exhaustive studies in order to solve the above-described problems and, as a result, have developed a material which may be most suitably used as a material for brackets for orthodontics, by making some improvements on an acrylic composite resin material which has heretofore been used as a restorative material. According to the present invention, we provide a bracket for orthodontics formed of plastics material characterised in that the bracket comprises: (A) a bracket body formed of a composite resin material; and (B) a thin layer of a synthetic resin material which is partly soluble or swellable in a dental adhesive, the layer (B) being laminated on the basal surface of said bracket body (A), the materials of the bracket body (A) and of the thin layer (B) being mingled with each other at the boundary therebetween. We also provide a process for producing the aforesaid orthodontic bracket comprising the steps of: supplying a composite resin paste into a mold to make the bracket body; placing on the basal surface of said composite resin paste a thin layer (B) of synthetic resin paste which is partly soluble or swellable in a dental adhesive; and polymerizing and setting these materials. Since the above-described orthodontic brackets according to the present invention have considerably high fracture strength compared with the conventional plastic (polycarbonate) brackets, it is possible to produce siamese type brackets for the front teeth and brackets with torque angulation, which have heretofore been impossible to produce because of the inadequate mechanical strength of the plastic materials for the prior art. Since the orthodontic brackets according to the present invention are excellent in terms of various mechanical properties, i.e., tensile strength, flexural strength and compressive strength, it is also possible to reduce the required size of the brackets. Therefore, a patient who has such a bracket attached to his tooth feels less uncomfortable with the foreign matter in his mouth. The brackets according to the present invention, which are translucent, have excellent aesthetic properties, and since the hardness thereof is sufficiently high, the straightening wire is able to slide smoothly and there is no fear of the surface of the bracket being contaminated due to scratches which would otherwise be made with a toothbrush or the like. Accordingly, the brackets of the present invention not only have satisfactory initial strength but also exhibit high mechanical strength over a long period of time and therefore are free from the risk of fracture or surface contamination even if they are used for a long time. In addition, the provision of the above-described thin layer on the surface of the bracket body enables satisfactory improvement in the adhesion of the bracket to the tooth. By the present invention, there is provided a bracket for orthodontics which has superior aesthetic properties and enhanced mechanical strength and further has improved adhesion to the tooth surface through an orthodontic adhesive. In the present invention, the bracket body is formed from a composite resin material which is generally used as a restorative material (it is, however, necessary to somewhat modify the composition of the resin material), and a thin layer of a synthetic resin material B which is partly soluble or swellable in a dental adhesive or is adhesive to a dental adhesive is laminated on the base surface of the bracket body. The reason for this is that excellent mechanical strength is imparted to the bracket by forming the bracket body using the above-described composite resin material and the adhesion of the bracket to an orthodontic adhesive is improved by forming the above-described synthetic resin thin layer on the base surface. In the present invention, it is required from the viewpoint of mechanical strength that the synthetic resin material and the composite resin material be mingled with each other at the interfacial boundary between the base surface and the thin layer of the product, and it is therefore preferable to carry out polymerization and setting with the two materials being in contact with each other in any of the following contact states: contact of viscous liquid to viscous liquid; contact of viscous liquid to tacky resin surface; and contact of tacky resin surface to tacky resin surface. It should be noted that the synthetic resin thin layer is only required to have a thickness of about 0.1 mm and the material for the thin layer preferably consists essentially of a PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) having an average molecular weight of 100,000 or less or a polymethyl methacrylate copolymer. Such a synthetic resin material readily sticks to an orthodontic adhesive and therefore contributes to achievement of satisfactorily high adhesive strength between the bracket according to the present invention and the tooth undergoing orthodontic treatment. The synthetic resin material used in the present invention obtained by polymerization and setting is much superior to the conventional polycarbonate material in terms of various mechanical properties. In particular, the Brinell hardness of the bracket material used in the present invention is about twice that of the polycarbonate material, the compressive strength of the former is about five times that of the latter, and the tensile and flexural strengths of the former are also 30 to 40% higher than those of the latter. The fracture strength (described later in detail) of the bracket according to the present invention is 30 to 50% higher than that of the prior art. With these excellent mechanical properties, the orthodontic bracket of the present invention is much superior to that of the prior art. In the case of the polycarbonate bracket, since the hardness thereof is not sufficiently high, the ligating wire cuts into the bracket surface during the straightening operation, so that the wire is unable to slide smoothly, whereas, with the bracket of the present invention, there is no possibility of the wire cutting into the bracket surface and it is therefore possible to ensure smooth sliding of the wire. In addition, since the bracket surface is hard and therefore unlikely to be scratched with a toothbrush, the bracket is free from surface contamination. Further, the bracket of the present invention is capable of satisfactory bearing various kinds of stress and load which may be applied thereto in actual use, and therefore there is no fear of the bracket being damaged or fractured even if it is used for a long period of time. The bracket material and the synthetic resin thin layer of the orthodontic bracket according to the present invention preferably have the following respective compositions by weight. The composite resin material which constitutes the bracket body (B) is obtained by polymerizing and setting a mixture consisting of: (a) 40 to 80% of a multifunctional (meth)acrylate; (b) 9 to 50% of monofunctional (meth)acrylate; (c) 5 to 80% of filler; and (d) 0.01 to 2% of initiator. The synthetic resin thin layer laminated on the surface of the bracket is formed by polymerizing and setting a mixture consisting of in a first embodiment: (e) 30 to 70% of monofunctional methacrylate; (f) 30 to 70% of polymethacrylate or copolymer thereof; and (g) 0.01 to 1% of initiator; or in a second embodiment: (e) 5 to 24% of a multifunctional methacrylate; (f) 0 to 24% of a monofunctional methacrylate; (g) 50 to 90% of a silica filler; and (h) 0.01 to 1% of a initiator, the thin layer being laminated on the surface of the bracket body in such a manner that the composite resin material A constituting the bracket body and the composite resin material B constituting the thin layer are mingled with each other at the boundary therebetween. Examples of multifunctional methacrylates (a) usable in this mixture include dimethacrylates such as ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, diethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxy)phenyl] propane, 2,2-bis-(4-methacryloxyphenyl) propane, 2,2-bis-(4-methacryloxyethoxyphenyl) propane, 2,2-bis-(4-methacryloxypolyethoxyphenyl) propane and di-(methacryloxyethyl) trimethylhexamethylenediurethane, trimethacrylates such as trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, and tetramethylolmethane trimethacrylate, tetramethacrylates such as tetramethylolmethane tetramethacrylate, and hexamethacrylates such as dipentaerythritol hexamethacrylate. Examples of multifunctional acrylates (a) include diacrylates such as ethylene glycol diacrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, tetraethylene glycol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3-acryloxypropoxy)phenyl] propane, 2,2-bis-(4-acryloxyphenyl) propane, 2,2-bis-(4-acryloxyethoxyphenyl) propane, 2,2-bis-(4-acryloxypolyethoxyphenyl) propane, and di(acryloxyethyl) trimethylhexamethylenediurethane, triacrylates such as trimethylolpropane triacrylate, and tetramethylolmethane triacrylate, tetraacrylates such as tetramethylolmethane tetraacrylate, and hexaacrylates such as dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate. Examples of monofunctional methacrylates (b) include mthyl metacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, isopropyl methacrylate, n-butyl methacrylate, 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate, cyclohexyl methacrylate, phenyl methacrylate, benzyl methacrylate, and isobornyl methacrylate. Examples of monofunctional acrylates (b) include methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, isopropyl acrylate, n-butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, cyclohexyl acrylate, phenyl acrylate, benzyl acrylate, isobornyl acrylate, trimethylsilylpropyl acrylate, tris-trimethylsiloxanylsilyl acrylate and trifluoromethyl acrylate. Examples of fillers (c) are inorganic and organic fillers. Examples of inorganic fillers include finely-crushed glass, finely-ground quartz, alumina fine powder and other ceramic find powders. A silica filler surface-treated with a silane coupling agent is one of the preferred inorganic fillers. Preferred examples of organic fillers are finely divided particles obtained by grinding a dimethacrylate, trimethacrylate, tetramethacrylate, hexamethacrylate, diacrylate, triacrylate, tetraacrylate, hexaacrylate or the like after polymerization, or finely divided particles obtained by pearl polymerization of these materials. As to the polymerization initiator, (1) in the case of heat polymerization, those which are generally used, for example, organic peroxides and azobis compounds, may be employed; (2) in the case of cold polymerization, for example, a combination of a peroxide and a tertiary amine may be employed. Further, (3) in the case of photopolymerization, it is possible to employ a combination of a peroxide and a photosensitizer of a combination of a photosensitizer and a reducing agent. Examples of photosensitizers usable in the present invention include those which are employed for ultraviolet curing, such as benzophenones. Particularly preferable examples of photosensitizers are those which are employed for visible light curing, for example, a combination of camphor quinone and a tertiary amine. Our novel bracket is considerably advantageously produced by a process which employs irradiation with visible light, and therefore is it preferable to use a composite resin material and synthetic resin paste of the photopolymerization type and carry out polymerization and setting by means of light irradiation. Examples of (f) a polymethyl methacrylate or a copolymer thereof include copolymers of methyl methacrylate and a monofunctional methacrylate, such as a copolymer of methyl methacrylate and ethyl methacrylate or of methyl methacrylate and butyl methacrylate. The following are reasons why the amounts of the components (a) to (d) used in the mixture (B) are preferably restricted within the above-described ranges by weight. (a) If the amount of multifunctional methacrylate and/or a multifunctional acrylate is outside the range of from 40 to 80 or 90% (for example, if it is less than 40%) the fracture strength of the wings of the resulting bracket is reduced, which results in an unsatisfactory product, whereas, if said amount exceeds 90%, the wings of the bracket become brittle and the fracture strength thereof also is reduced, which results in an unfavorable product. (b) If the amount of monofunctional (meth)acrylate is outside the range of from 9 to 50% (for example, if it is less than 9%), the bracket material becomes brittle and the fracture strength of the wings of the resulting bracket is reduced, whereas, if said amount exceeds 50%, the tensile strength of the bracket material is reduced and the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket becomes unsatisfactory. (c) If the amount of a filler is outside the range of from 5 to 80% (for example, if it is less than 5%), the compressive strength of the bracket material is reduced, whereas, if said amount exceeds 30% by weight, the tensile strength of the material lowers and the fracture strength of the wings of the resulting bracket lowers to an unsatisfatory level. (d) If the amount of initiator is outside of the range of from 0.01 to 2% (for example, if it is less than 0.01%), an unpolymerized substance is left in the reaction product, whereas, if said amount exceeds 2%, the bracket material become brittle and the fracture strength of the wings of the resulting bracket is reduced. With regard to the composition of the first embodiment of synthetic resin thin layer B the amounts by weight of the components (e) to (g) are preferably restricted for the following reasons. (e) If the amount of monofunctional methacrylate is outside the range of from 30 to 70% (for example, if it is less than 30%), the viscosity of the pasty material increases so that it becomes difficult to form a synthetic resin thin layer on the bracket base, whereas, if said amount exceeds 70% by weight, the thin layer is wrinkled due to large shrinkage on polymerization. (f) If the amount of polymethacrylate or a copolymer thereof is outside 30 to 70% (for example, if it is less than 30%), the thin layer is wrinkled due to large shrinkage on polymerization. (g) If the amount of initiator is outside 0.01 to 1% (for example, if it is less than 0.01%), polymerization results in a failure, whereas, if said amount exceeds 1%, foaming occurs due to excessively fast polymerization, so that the resulting thin layer is non-homogenous. With regard to the composition of the second embodiment of the composite resin B thin layer, the amounts of the components (e) to (h) are preferably restricted for the following reasons. (e) If the amount of multifunctional methacrylate is outside 5 to 24% (for example, if it is less than 5%), the strength of the composite resin B thin layer is excessively low, whereas, if said amount exceeds 24%, the adhesion of the thin layer lowers. (f) If the amount of monofunctional methacrylate is outside 0 to 24% (i.e., if it exceeds 24%), the thin layer is wrinkled due to large shrinkage on polymerization and the bond strength also lowers. (g) If the amount of silica filler is outside 50 to 90% (for example, if it is less than 50%), the adhesion of the thin layer is reduced, whereas, if said amount exceeds 90%, it becomes impossible to produce a pasty material. (h) If the amount of initiator is outside 0.01 to 1% (for example, if it is less than 0.01%), polymerization results in a failure, whereas, if said amount exceeds 1% by weight, foaming occurs due to excessively fast polymerization, so that the resulting thin layer is non-homogeneous. More preferable ranges for the components of the bracket body are as follows: (a) 50 to 80% of multifunctional (meth)acrylate; (b) 15 to 45% of monofunctional (meth) acrylate; (c) 7 to 50% of filler; and (d) 0.01 to 2% of initiator. More preferable weight ranges for the components of the synthetic resin thin layer (B) are as follows: For the first embodiment (e) 40 to 60% of monofunctional methacrylate; (f) from 40 to 60% of polymethacrylate or a copolymer thereof; and (g) from 0.01 to 1% of polymerization initiator; and for the second embodiment (e) 5 to 20% of multifunctional methacrylate; (f) 5 to 20% of monofunctional methacrylate; (g) 60 to 85% of silica filler; and (h) 0.01 to 1% of initiator. The bracket body of the present invention may be formed by various methods, for example, a method wherein the polymerized plastic material is machined (e.g. by cutting or grinding), or a method wherein a mixture of materials such as a monomer or prepolymer is polymerized and set in a mold. It is, however, preferable to employ the latter method, i.e., the method wherein a mixture of materials is polymerized and set in a mold, because it is possible to form simultaneously the bracket body and the synthetic resin thin layer. Example of molds usable in the present invention include those which are made of metallic, ceramic, glass or resin materials. In the case of heat or cold polymerization, it is possible to use a mold made of a metallic, ceramic or glass material. Where the molding is carried out by photopolymerization, it is possible to use a mold made of a glass, light-transmitting resin or ceramic material. In the accompanying drawings: FIg. 1 is a sectional view of a mold used to produce an orthodontic bracket according to one embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 2 is a sectional view of an orthodontic bracket according to one embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 3 illustrates a method of measuring the fracture strength of the wing portion of an orthodontic bracket; and Fig. 4 illustrates a method of measuring the compression shear strength of an orthodontic bracket. The mold shown in Fig. 1 is a split mold which consists of a lower mold member 3, a side mold member 4 and an upper mold member 5, which define in combination a cavity 6 for forming a bracket. The second embodiment of composite resin material B does not easily stick to a dental adhesive in this state. However, the composite resin material B which has been treated with a silane coupling agent firmly bonds to a dental adhesive and therefore contributes to satisfactory enhancing the bond strength of the bracket to the tooth. The present invention will be explained more specifically below by way of Examples and Comparative Examples and by reference to the drawings. Example 1 Paste A (paste for constituting bracket body) parts by weight Methyl methacrylate 18 2,2-bis-(4-methacryloxypolyethoxyphenyl) propane 52 Aerosil R972 (manufactured by Nihon Aerosil; silica powder) 10 Glass powder 50 N,N-dimethyl-p-toluidine 0.3 Benzoyl peroxide 0.3 The above-described components were mixed together and stirred vigorously. Thereafter, the mixture was subjected to vacuum deaeration to remove completely air bubbles from the mixture, thereby preparing a paste A. Paste B (Paste for constituting synthetic resin thin layer) Methyl methacrylate 48 parts by weight Polymethyl methacrylate 52 parts by weight Camphorquinone 0.3 part by weight Benzoyl peroxide 0.3 part by weight The above-described components were mixed together and stirred vigorously. Thereafter, the mixture was subjected to vacuum deaeration to remove completely air bubbles from the mixture, thereby preparing a paste B. An amount of the paste A sufficient to constitute the bracket body was first supplied into a cavity 6 defined inside the lower and side mold members 3 and 4 of a polypropylene split mold having the configuration shown in Fig. 1, and then an amount of the paste B sufficient to constitute the thin layer was injected so as to be disposed on the paste A. Thereafter, the upper mold member 5 was fitted into the cavity 6, and the mold was fixedly clamped from the upper and lower sides thereof by means of leaf springs 7 having a U-shaped cross-section. The mold was then put in a visible light irradiator α-Light (manufactured by K.K Morita Tokyo Seisakusho) to irradiate the pastes A and B in the mold with light for 10 minutes. The fracture strength of the wings of the resulting brackets (see Fig. 2) was tested in the manner described below. As shown in Fig. 3, the bracket 1,2 was bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth 12 using Superbond 11 (an adhesive manufactured by Sun Medical Co., Ltd.), the proximal portion of the bovine tooth 12 being buried in a resin 13, and this test specimen was attached to a retainer 8 made of steel. Then, the entire wing portion of the bracket 1 was held with a grab-shaped holding member 9 and the holding member 9 was pulled upward. In this way, the level of load at the time when the wing portion was fractured or deformed was measured with an Instron universal tester. As a result of the measurement, the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket 1 was 14.7 kg and there was no separation at the interface between the bonded surfaces. In addition, the bracket 1,2 which was of the same color as that of teeth, also had excellent aesthetic properties. Example 2 Example 1 was repeated, with the differences that in Paste A the dimethyl toluidine was replaced by 0.1 part of camphor quinone; and in paste B the benzoyl peroxide was replaced by N,N-dimethyl p-toluidine, 0.3 part. In the fracture strength test the result was 14.7 kg and again there was no separation at the interface; the bracket 1,2 produced had the same color as that of teeth and excellent aesthetic properties. Comparative Example 1 Example 1 was repeated, but without the use of paste B; the paste A alone was supplied to the cavity 6 in the mold, so that no thin layer B was formed. After the irradiation and testing for fracture strength, the base of the resultant bracket separated from the enamel of the bovine tooth at a load of 10.8 kg. Comparative Example 2 A bracket made of a homogeneous polycarbonate which had the same configuration as that of the cavity 6 shown in Fig. 1 was prepared by an injection molding process and it was bonded to the surface of the enamel of the bovine tooth to measure the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket in the same way as in Example 1 . As a result, the wing portion of the polycarbonate bracket was deformed at a load of 4.2 kg to such an extent that it could not be used for clinical purposes. Comparative Example 3: A commercially available ceramic bracket (manufactured by Unitec Corporation) was bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth to measure the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket in the same way as in Example 1. As a result, the bracket was separated from the bovine tooth at a load of 3.5 kg. It will be understood from the foregoing that the bracket according to the present invention has high mechanical strength and also has high strength of bond to the tooth and hence the fracture strength of the wing portions of the bracket is three times that of the prior arts shown in Comparative Examples 2 and 3. Further, as will be clear from the results shown in Table 1, the bracket materials according to the present invention are also markedly superior to the polycarbonate bracket material prepared in Comparative Example 2 in terms of all the measured properties, i.e., hardness, tensile strength, flexural strength and compressive strength. Brinell hardness Tensile strength Flexural strength Compressive strength Example 1 36 91 146 415 Example 2 39 82 148 450 Comp.Ex. 1 36 91 146 415 Comp.Ex. 2 13 62 92 85 It will be further understood from the following experimental results that the orthodontic bracket according to the present invention has been satisfactorily improved in terms of adhesion to the tooth. Namely, the compression shear strength of each of the brackets prepared in the above-described Examples and Comparative Examples was measured by the following method. As shown in Fig. 4, Superbond 11 (a dental adhesive manufactured by Sun Medical Co., Ltd.) was applied to the base surface of the bracket 1, and the bracket base was bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth 12 the proximal portion of which was buried in an acrylic resin 13. Thereafter, the bracket body 1 was subjected to compressive stress in the direction of the arrow by means of an Instron universal tester through a pressing member 14 to measure compression shear strength. The compression shear strength of each bracket was expressed in terms of the level of load measured at the time when the bracket base was separated from the enamel of the bovine tooth. Compression shear strength Example 1 32.5 kg Example 2 38.2 kg Comp.Ex. 1 12.1 kg Comp.Ex. 2 15.4 kg Comp.Ex. 3 3.5 kg Example 3: Paste A (paste for constituting bracket body) Parts by weight Methyl methacrylate 18 2,2-bis-(4-methacryloxypolyethoxyphenyl) propane 52 Aerosil R972 (manufactured by Nihon Aerosil) 10 Glass powder 20 Benzoyl peroxide 0.3 N,N-dimethyl-p-toluidine 0.3 Paste B (paste for consitituting composite resin thin layer) Parts by weight Methyl methacrylate 2 2,2-bis(p-2'-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxyphenyl) propane 13 Glass powder 85 Camphor quinone 0.3 Benzoyl peroxide 0.3 The above-described components were respectively mixed together and stirred vigorously and molded, all as described in Example 1. The fracture strength of the wings of the resulting bracket (see Fig. 2) was tested in the manner described below. After Porcelain liner M (a dental silane coupling agent manufactured by Sun Medical Co., Ltd.) had been applied to the basal surface of the bracket 1,2 then as shown in Fig. 3 the bracket 1 was bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth 12 using Superbond 11 and tested as in Example 1. As a result of the measurement, the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket 1 was 14.2 kg and there was no separation at the interface between the bonded surfaces. In addition, the bracket 1, which was of the same color as that of teeth, also had excellent aesthetic properties. Example 4: Paste A (paste for constituting bracket body) parts by weight Methyl methacrylate 18 2,2-bis-(4-methacryloxypolyethoxyphenyl) propane 52 Aerosil R972 (manufactured by Nihon Aerosil) 20 Trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate 10 Camphor quinone 0.1 Benzoyl peroxide 0.3 Paste B (paste for constituting synthetic resin thin layer) Parts by weight Di-(methacryloxyethyl) trimethylhexane diurethane 35 Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate 10 Quartz powder 55 Camphor quinone 0.3 N,N-dimethyl-p-toluidine 0.3 The above described components were mixed together and stirred and molded all as described in Example 1. The fracture strength of the wings of the resulting bracket (see Fig. 2) was tested in the manner described in Example 1, with identical results thereto. Comparative Example 4: Example 3 was repeated but without the use of Paste B; the bracket body 1 was alone formed. After fracture strength testing as in Example 3, the fracture strength was 13.4 kg. Comparative Example 5: A bracket made of a homogeneous polycarbonate which had the same configuration as that of the cavity 6 shown in Fig. 1 was prepared by an injection molding process and it was bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth to measure the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket in the same way as in Example 3. As a result, the wing portion of the polycarbonate bracket was deformed at a load of 4.2 kg to such an extent that it could not be used for clinical purposes. Comparative Example 6: A commercially available ceramic bracket (manufactured by Unitec Corporation) was bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth to measure the fracture strength of the wings of the bracket in the same way as in Example 3. As a result, the bracket was separated from the bovine tooth at a load of 3.5 kg. It will be understood from the foregoing that the bracket according to the present invention has high mechanical strength and also has high strength of bond to the tooth and hence the fracture strength of the wing portions of the bracket is three times that of the prior arts shown in Comparative Examples 4 and 5. Further, as will be clear from the results shown in Table 3, the bracket materials according to the present invention are also markedly superior to the polycarbonate bracket material prepared in Comparative Example 5 in terms of all the measured properties, i.e., hardness, tensile strength, flexural strength and compressive strength. Brinell hardness Tensile strength Flexural strength Compressive strength Example 3 34 98 138 385 Example 4 30 94 132 368 Comp.Ex.4 36 91 146 368 Comp.Ex.5 13 62 92 85 It will be further understood from the following experimental results that the orthodontic bracket according to the present invention has been satisfactorily improved in terms of adhesion to the tooth. Namely, the compression shear strength of each of the brackets prepared in the above-described Examples and Comparative Examples was measured by the following method. As shown in Fig. 4, after Porcelain liner M (a silane coupling agent manufactured by Sun Medical Co., Ltd.) had been applied to the base surface of the bracket 1, Superbond 11 (a dental adhesive manufactured by Sun Medical Co., Ltd.) was applied to the base surface of the bracket 1, and the bracket base was then bonded to the surface of the enamel of a bovine tooth 12 the proximal portion of which was buried in an acrylic resin 13. Thereafter, the bracket body 1 was subjected to compressive stress in the direction of the arrow by means of an Instron universal tester through a pressing member 14 to measure compression shear strength. The compression shear strength of each bracket was expressed in terms of the level of load measured at the time when the bracket base was separated from the enamel of the bovine. Compression shear strength Example 2 40.5 kg Example 4 31.1 kg Comp.Ex. 4 12.1 kg Comp.Ex. 5 15.4 kg Comp.Ex. 6 3.5 kg It will be understood from the experimental results in Tables 3 and 4 that the bracket of the present invention is particularly superior in terms of compression shear strength, which serves as an indication of adhesive properties. Accordingly, the orthodontic bracket of the present invention has no risk of being separated from the surface of the tooth even when it is subjected to strong straightening force from the wire. As has been described above by way of Examples, the second embodiment of orthodontic bracket according to the invention has at its wing portion considerably high fracture strength, that is, fracture strength which is several times that of the conventional plastic brackets and the bracket of the present invention also has satisfactory strength of bond to the tooth. In addition, the bracket of the present invention, which is semi-transparent, i.e., milky white, has excellent aesthetic properties. Accordingly, it is possible to produce siamese type brackets for 21|12 and brackets with torque angulation, which have heretofore been impossible to produce because of the inadequate mechanical strength of the plastic materials used in the prior art. Further, there is no risk of the bracket being separated from the surface of the tooth even when it is subjected to excessively strong straightening force from the wire. Since the orthodontic bracket according to the present invention is excellent in terms of various mechanical properties, i.e., tensile strength, flexural strength, compressive strength, etc., it is also possible to reduce the required size of the bracket. Therefore, a patient who has this bracket attached to his tooth feels less uncomfortable with the foreign matter in his mouth. Since the surface hardness of the bracket according to the present invention is markedly higher than that of the prior art, there is no fear of the surface of the bracket being contaminated due to scratches which would otherwise be made with a toothbrush or the like.

Claims: A bracket for orthodontics formed of plastics material characterised in that the bracket comprises: (A) a bracket body formed of a composite resin material; and (B) a thin layer of a synthetic resin material which is partly soluble or swellable in a dental adhesive, the layer (B) being laminated on the basal surface of said bracket body (A), the materials of the bracket body (A) and of the thin layer (B) being mingled with each other at the boundary therebetween. An orthodontics bracket according to Claim 1, wherein the composite resin material of the bracket body is formed by polymerizing and setting a mixture consisting of by weight: (a) from 40 to 80% of a multifunctional methacrylate and/or a multifunctional acrylate, (b) from 9 to 50% of a monofunctional methacrylate and/or a monofunctional acrylate, (c) from 5 to 80% of a filler, and (d) from 0.01 to 2% of a polymerization initiator. A bracket for orthodontics according to Claim 2, wherein the synthetic resin thin layer (B) is formed by polymerizing and setting a mixture consisting of by weight, (e) from 30 to 70% of a monofunctional methacrylate, (f) from 30 to 70% of either a polymethacrylate or a copolymer thereof, and (g) from 0.01 to 1% of a polymerization initiator. An orthodontics bracket according to Claim 2, wherein the synthetic resin thin layer (B) is formed by polymerizing and setting a mixture consisting of by weight, (e) from 5 to 24% of a multifunctional methacrylate, (f) from 0 to 24% of a monofunctional methacrylate, (g) from 50 to 90% of a silica filler, and (h) from 0.01 to 1% of a initiator. A process for producing an orthodontic bracket as claimed in any of Claims 1 to 4, comprising the steps of: supplying a composite resin paste into a mold to make the bracket body; placing on the basal surface of said composite resin paste a thin layer (B) of synthetic resin paste which is partly soluble or swellable in a dental adhesive; and polymerizing and setting these materials. A process as claimed in Claim 5, wherein said composite resin paste and said synthetic resin paste are of the photopolymerization type and said polymerization and setting step is carried out by irradiation with light. A process as claimed in Claim 5 or 6 wherein the thin layer (B) has a thickness of about 0.1 mm.

Inventors: KOMIYA SHIGEO, MASUHARA EIICHI, SANBONMATSU KIYOMI, KOMIYA, SHIGEO, MASUHARA,EIICHI, SANBONMATSU,KIYOMI
Applicants: JAPAN INST ADVANCED DENTISTRY, JAPAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED DENTISTRY
Application year: 1988
Main classification: A61K6
IPC codes: A61K6, A61C7