Effects of

. ret ycling o/y1~hmetallic

direct-bond orthodontie brackets
Dennis J. L. Buchman, D.M.D., MS.* Dennis Buchman
Morguntown, W. Vu.

Recycling ojmetullic direct-bond orthodontic bruckets is (4current irltc, t~i

to the profession, The methods of three recycling companies (Esmudeur.
Ortho-Cycle. and Ortho-Bonding) us well us the uuthor.) ,jiume method )!YI~
esumined for their ejjects on brucket ba.~~ toryue, slot vvidth, and me~htrn~~~~rl
properties. There wus no stutisticull~ signifcunt d#krence umong the &UI
methods of recycling in terms of change in base toryuc angle und slor width.
A slightly stutisticullp sigm~cunt number of brackets in the control group hurl
u c,hange in slot width of not more than 0.0015 inch (0.038 mm.). trnd the
number of brackets with uny change in slot width MU less thtrn 20 percem.
The rec:\cling methods of the uuthor und Ortho-Bonding c,uused u los.\ of
ferromugnetism in the ret:vcled bruckets , suggesting unneuling of the mrttrl.
The effect ofthermnl treatment on bruckets was evuluuted bJ measuring
hardness und theoreticul tensile strength und by evuluuting microstructure.
The Ortho-Cycle method did not alter the mechunicul properties of the
brucket metal while the Esmudent method cased subtle chunges. The
authors process and the Ortho-Bonding method c,uused curbide sepurution,
While it uppeurs thut the umount ojdimensionul c,hungeJ in the bruckcts is of
little clinicul sign$icunce. the change.s in the metullurgic mic,rostruc,turv
suggest susceptibilit? to metullic inter~runulur corrosion.

Key words: Orthodontics, recycling, bonding, brackets, metallurgy

C urrently, there is increased interest in the recycling of metallic direct-bond

orthodontic brackets. The steps in recycling or reconditioning involve removal of the
bonding agent from the bracket, followed by electropolishing. A number of companies,
including Esmadent (Company E),t Ortho-Cycle (Company O-C),+ and Ortho Bonding
(Company O-B),3 offer such a service, and the price per bracket is significantly lower
than the price of new appliances. To date, however, no data have been published to show
that the recycling processes do not significantly alter the slot configurations of the

From the Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, West Virginia University Medical
Center.
This article is based on a thesis submitted by Dr. Buchman in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Master of Science degree from the Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, West
Virginia University Medical Center.
Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Orthodontists, New Orleans, La.,
April 26-30, 1980.
*In the private practice of orthodontics at 1205 West Baker St., Plant City, Fla. 33566.
tEsmadent-Division of Esma Chemicals, P. 0. Box 162, Highland Park, 111.60035.
$Ortho-Cycle Company, 1231 Ross Ave., St. Louis, MO. 63141.
SOrtho Bonding Company, 28-15 Fair Lawn Ave., Fair Lawn, N. J. 07410.

654 0002.9416/80/060554+15$01.50/0 0 1980 The C. V. Mosby Co.

Volume II
Number 6
Recycling of metallic direct-bond brackets 655

Fig. 1. Areas analyzed on bracket. (Y = Base torque. p = Slot width.

brackets. The purpose of this study will be to evaluate recycled brackets to determine the
extent of physical alteration after clinical use followed by recycling. The areas to be
analyzed (Fig. 1) include the base torque angle (a), the slot width (p), and the mechanical
properties of the appliances as reflected in the microstructure, hardness, theoretical tensile
strength, and magnetic properties of the metal.
Careful bracket removal from the tooth is important because careless stripping will
cause distortion by either breakage, crushing of the slot channel and/or base, or both. The
companies involved in recycling have indicated that brackets observed to have obvious
distortion will be returned and will not be recycled.
The three companies involved in this study were unable to give complete information
as to the exact process by which the bonding agent is removed from the bracket. Company
E, which also advertises a machine that can be purchased for bracket recycling in the
office, states that the brackets are heated for 45 minutes at a temperature of 454 C. The
information obtained from Company O-C indicated that their process involves solvent
stripping of the adhesive from the bracket at a temperature below 100 C. followed by a
250 C. heat treatment for sterilization purposes. The composition of this solvent was not
revealed by the company, and no report of a solvent for such acrylic has appeared in the
literature, to my knowledge. Company O-B offered no information concerning its method
of adhesive removal, although it requests that the bonding agent used be mentioned when
the brackets are submitted since the ultraviolet-light-activated adhesives require greater
exposure. It is assumed that this exposure refers to heat, since no solvent for the adhesive
is mentioned in Company O-Bs advertising.
The use of heat is a critical factor in the recycling process because of its influence on
the microstructure of the brackets. Most orthodontic brackets are made of austenitic
stainless steel. lo, l4 If this steel is heated to between 400 C. and 900 C., a chromium
carbide precipitate is formed and, as a result, a partial disintegration of the alloy occurs,
leading to a general structural weakening. 14* In addition, the loss of chromium from the
metal via the carbide precipitation causes a decrease in the corrosion resistance of the
alloy.123l4 Temperatures above 650 C. will anneal (soften) the metal and its properties of
hardness, and tensile strength cannot be restored. I3 It is interesting to note that Company
E(s process falls in the range of carbide precipitation leading to a decrease in corrosion
resistance.
Electropolishing of the recycled bracket to reduce any surface unevenness or rough-
ness is important, not only from the standpoint of patient comfort but also to reduce the
tendency toward tarnish or corrosion during use. l4 Since electropolishing takes only 15 to
*Other metallurgical texts vary as to where sensitization occurs.
Table I. Statistical analysis of recycling methods

Bracket torque (cu)

Affected Obs. = 4.0 Ohs. = 9.0
Exp. = 6.5 Exp. = 6.5 13
xz Y [,3]6.
Not affected Obs. = 96.0 Obs. = 91.0
Exp. = 93.5 Exp. = 93.5 187
Totals 100.0 100.0 200
Bracket slot (p)
Affected Obs. = 3 Obs. = 13
Exp. = 8 Exp. = 8 16
x2 = 5.503*
Not affected Obs. = 97 Obs. = 87
Exp. = 92 Exp. = 92 -184
Totals 100 100 200

Affected = Differing from the Company A standard(s).

Not Affected = Not differing from the Company A standard(s).
NS = Not significant
*Significant at p = 0.05.

30 seconds, 4 and the current density is greatest at the edges and protrusions and very low
in crevices,, 6 the amount of metal removed from a bracket is considered negligible4 and
the slot configuration should be insignificantly affected.

Materials and methods

A total of 361 metallic direct-bond A-Company* (Company A) orthodontic
brackets were recycled after use by a practicing orthodontist and then measured. Of these,
100 were recycled by Company E, 130 by Company O-C, and 13 1 by Company O-B. In
addition, I recycled and then measured 105 Company A brackets after use by the West
Virginia University Department of Orthodontics. Distorted brackets noticed upon gross
examination were discarded from this study. As controls, 100 new Company A incisor,
canine, and premolar brackets were measured, recycled by me, and measured again.
The method of recycling that I used consisted of three steps. First, the bracket to be
recycled was held with tongs in a Bunsen burner flame (approximately 1,200 C.) for 5
seconds in order that the bonding agent might be ignited and burned off. The remaining
inorganic filler was removed by loosely tying 0.010 inch diameter (0.254 mm.) ligature
wire around the bracket wings and holding the bracket in a laboratory sandblaster for 10
seconds. The cleaned bracket was then electropolished for 20 seconds by connecting the
alligator clip of a Rocky Mountain 700 electropolisher to the ligature wire with the bracket
submerged in the electrolyte.
Brackets were measured with a Leitz-Wetzlar Ortholux microscope at a magnification
on the viewing screen of 25X. At that magnification, a 0.022 inch (0.56 mm.) wide slot
would be 14 mm. wide. This magnification was verified by direct measurement on the
viewing screen. Each bracket was placed under the microscope in the same position, SO

*A-Company, Inc., 11436 Sorrento Valley Rd., San Diego, Calif. 92121.
 Voime 17
Nunlber 6
Recycling of met&c direct-bond brackets 657

Recycling methods

Company O-B Company E Company O-C Author Totals Signijcance

-

Obs. = 22.00 Obs. = 17.00 Obs. = 19.00 Obs. = 18.00

Enp. = 21.36 Exp. = 16.30 Exp. = 21.20 Exp. = 17.12 76
x2 = 0.3722cx.s.1
Obs. = 109.00 Obs. = 83.00 Obs. = 111.00 Obs. = 87.00
Exp. = 109.60 Exp. = 83.69 Exp. = 108.79 Exp. = 87.87 390
131.00 100.00 130.00 1o5.00 -
466

Obs. = 17.00 Obs. = 19.00 Obs. = 17.00 Obs. = 19.00

Exp. = 20.24 Exp. = 15.45 Exp. = 20.28 Exp. = 16.22 72
x2 = 2,73~.S.l
Crbs. = 114.00 Obs. = 81.00 Obs. = 113.00 Obs. = 86.00
Exp. = 110.76 Exp. = 84.55 Exp. = 109.91 Exp. = 88.78 394
131.00 100.00 130.M) 105.00 466

that a proximal view could be established with the mesiogingival aspect of the bracket
toward the lens. On the viewing screen, the slot width (p, Fig. 1) was directly measured to
0.1 mm. with calipers. The base torque angle (a, Fig. 1) was determined from the viewing
screen by tracing it onto 0.003 inch (0.076 mm.) matte acetate paper and then measuring it
with a protractor.
To determine the amount of error in the bracket-analysis procedure, five new Com-
pany A brackets were randomly selected and measured for base torque and slot width on
five separate occasions. The measurement error was determined to be 2 percent for base
torque and 4 percent for slot width.
To evaluate the effect of recycling on the mechanical properties of brackets, eighty
new Rocky Mountain (Company R. M.)* direct-bond orthodontic brackets demonstrating
attraction to a common magnet were utilized. Concise? bonding agent was applied to the
pa.d of each bracket in preparation for recycling. Twenty brackets were subjected to the
Company E process, twenty to the Company O-C process, twenty to the Company O-B
process, and twenty to my process. Upon completion of the recycling, all of the brackets
in each group were evaluated for retention of their magnetic properties (Table II).
One lower anterior bracket from each group, along with a new control bracket, was
then sent to an independent metallurgic laboratory$ for analysis of hardness, theoretical
tensile strength, and microstructure (Table III). Four new Company R. M. premolar
brackets were also sent to this laboratory for thermal treatment, in calibrated ovens or in a
flame, and analysis (Table IV). For analysis of bracket microstructure, the oxalic acid etch
test, which is a rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens of certain
stainless steel grades which are essentially free of susceptibility to intergranular attack
associated with chromium carbide precipitation was used and photographs of the bracket
microstructure were taken.

*Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, P. 0. Box 17085, Denver, Colo. 80217.

t3M Company, St. Paul, Minn. 55101.
$l.ndustrial Testing Laboratories, Inc., 2350 South 7th Blvd., St. Louis, MO. 63104.
658 Buchman

Fig. 2. Photomicrograph of new A-Company bracket. (Magnification, x500.)

Table II. Effect of recycling methods on bracket magnetism

Recycling method Magnetic brackets processed (~1) Returned brackets demonstrating magnetism (7)

Company E 20 20
Company O-C 20 20
Company O-B 20 0
Author 20 0

Results
For each of the methods of recycling used in this study, base torque angles varied 4 1
from the standards published by Company A, and slot widths varied + 1 mm. at 25X
magnification. There was no statistically significant difference among the numbers of
affected brackets (Table I) observed in each method. In the control group of new brackets,
the number of those with affected base torque angles was not statistically significant.
However, the number of brackets with affected slot widths was slightly significant statisti-
cally (p = 0.05).
The fabrication of the majority of orthodontic brackets involves some cold-working.
In contrast, Company A brackets are cast fabricated. The microstructure of a new Com-
pany A bracket is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. In the photographs, note the islands
surrounded by the dark areas of carbide precipitation. Those islands are actually granules
of steel, which would become separated through the action of corrosive agents (inter-
Volume 17
Number 6
Recycling of metallic direct-bond brackets 669

Fig. 3. Photomicrograph of new A-Company bracket. (Magnification, x75.)

Table III. Effect of recycling methods on anterior bracket metallurgy*

Group Recychg method 111 Microstructure

Control None 21.0 (C) 264 131 100 Homogenous

A Company E 23.5 (C) 244 120 92 Crystal separation
B Company O-C 21.0 (C) 264 131 100 Homogeneous
C Company O-B 13.0 (B) 156 85 65 Carbideseparation
D Author 21.5 (C) 234 116 89 Carbideseparation

*Industrial Testing Laboratories,Inc., 2350 South 7th Blvd., St. Louis, MO. 63104

granular corrosion susceptibility.)7 This makes them more prone to corrosion than cold-
worked brackets. Thus, they were not used to demonstrate magnetism and microstructural
changes. Instead, Company R. M. brackets, which are cold-worked and have fer-
romagnetic qualities, were used for demonstration of mechanical property behaviors.
The evaluation of bracket magnetism (Table II) illustrates that the recycling methods
of Company E and Company O-C did not change the magnetic properties of the twenty
brackets subjected to each method, respectively. All the brackets in these two groups
retained their magnetic properties, while those recycled by CompanyO-B and by me did
not.
How the mechanical properties of a bracket are affected by the four recycling methods
660 Buchmun

Fig. 4. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket. (Recycling method control). (Magnification,
x500.)

used in this study is depicted in Table III. The Company O-C process did not cause a
change in the mechanical properties of the bracket. The hardness, theoretical tensile
strength, and microstructure (Fig. 5) remained the same as the control (Fig. 4). Note that
no island formation has occurred in the microstructure which is homogeneous. The Com-
pany E process caused a subtle change in the mechanical properties of the bracket, with an
associated decrease in hardness and theoretical tensile strength as compared to the control.
The bracket microstructure (Fig. 6) shows a beginning of island formation or metallic
crystal separation. My process caused a subtle change in the mechanical properties of the
bracket as compared to the bracket processed by Company E with an associated decrease
in hardness and theoretical tensile strength. The bracket microstructure (Fig. 8) shows
island formation with some metal grains surrounded by areas of carbide separation. The
Company O-B process caused a significant change in the mechanical properties of the
bracket as compared to the other three methods, with an associated decrease in hardness
and theoretical tensile strength. The bracket microstructure (Fig. 7) shows island forma-
tion with some metal grains completely surrounded by areas of carbide separation. Be-
cause of the considerably reduced hardness of the bracket processed by Company O-B, the
Rockwell B scale and Brine11 hardness numbers were used.
Exposure of a bracket to increased temperature directly affects the hardness and
theoretical tensile strength of the metal (Table IV). With the flames extremely high
temperature (-- 1,200 C.), only 2 minutes exposure time was allowed. Once above the
beginning of the sensitization range (400 C.), hardness and theoretical tensile strength is
Volume 11
Number 6
Recycling of metallic direct-bond brackets 661

Fig. 5. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket recycled by Company O-C. (Magnification,
x500.)

decreasedas the temperatureis increased.F igs. 9 through 12 show how the bracket
m icrostructureis affected by increasedheat exposure.F ig. 9 (Group I) shows a new
bracketwith no islandsevident. A beginningof island formation (crystal separation)is
shownin F ig. 10 (GroupII), andF ig. 11 (GroupIII) showsdefinite islandformationwith
somemetal grainscompletelysurroundedby areasof carbideseparation.F ig. 12 (Group
IV) showsisland formation comparableto that seenin F ig. 11.
Discussion
Although the numberof bracketswith a changein slot width was statistically sig-
nifficant,the differencesfrom the standardwere actually0.0015inch (0.038 m m .) or less
and appearto be of little clinical relevance.It shouldalso be noted that only 13 to 19
percentof all bracketsin this study had any changein slot width (Table I).
Removalof the acrylic bondingagent,which is usually a type of thermosettingfilled
resin, is the most critical part of the recyclingprocessandrequireseitherlong exposureto
he:ator specialprocedures,suchas the useof a solvent.Thesemethodsare accomplished
prior to any cleaningand polishing procedures.Completedecomposition(pyrolysis) of
acrylics occurs at around770C. Even at temperaturesof up to 416C., polymethyl
methacrylate,a noncross-linked resinwhich is thermoplasticandlessthermoresistant
than
most acrylics used in dental procedures,lOj l4 is only degradedand not pyrolyzed. In
general, pyrolysis of acrylics forms acids, which are a possible source of metallic
intergranularattack.6Thus, from this information, it seemsthat for completedecomposi-
662 Burhmurr

Fig. 6. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket recycled by Company E. (Magnification,

x500.)

tion of the bonding agent to occur when heat is used, the temperature of the process would
likely be in the sensitization if not the heat-softening range of the metal.
Temperature thresholds are very important. Exposure to heat may lead to stress reliev-
ing or softening of cold-worked metal along with decreasing its corrosion resistance. At
the same time, this may produce a layer of metal oxide, or scale, on the metallic surface6
which would have to be removed by electropolishing, thus leading to a possible slot
widening in a bracket.
The austenitic stainless steels are nonmagnetic but may develop ferromagnetic qual-
ities as a result of cold-working during fabrication, which forms some ferrite or marten-
site, both of which are strongly magnetic. This magnetism can be eliminated by a full
anneal to restore the metal to its full austenitic form. 6, I5 The temperature of this transfor-
mation is termed the Curie temperature, which is around 700 C.5* a ** lo
As illustrated in Table II, the recycling method of Company O-B and my own method
used temperatures equivalent to or exceeding the Curie temperature, since ferromagnetism
was completely lost in both groups. This is indicative of their having been annealed. The
Company E and Company O-C methods did not reach the Curie temperature and, conse-
quently, did not anneal the brackets.
Hardness and tensile strength (Tables III and IV) are directly related and, conse-
quently, any reduction in cold-working via sensitization or annealing causes a subsequent
reduction in these two parameters.
The effect of the recycling methods on bracket metallurgy (Table III) varied among the
four procedures. The Company O-C process probably did not alter the metallic structure
Volume II
Recycling of metallic direct-bond brackets 663
Number 6

Fiig. 7. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket recycled by Company O-B. (Magnifiia Ition,
x50 IO.)

Fig. 8. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket recycled by author. (Magnification, x500.)
 ,in/ J Orthud
664 Buchmm June 1980

Fig. 9. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket (thermal treatment control). (Magnification,
x500.)

of the bracket as the hardness, theoretical tensile strength, and microstructure (Fig. 5)
were similar to those of the control (Fig. 4). This indicates that the Company O-C process
did not involve thermal treatment of the bracket. The Company E process, which em-
ployed heat, had a small decrease in hardness and theoretical tensile strength, with the
microstructure (Fig. 6) showing some separation of metallic crystals. This substantiates
the claim by Company E concerning the heating of brackets at about 454 C., which is in
the sensitization range for austenitic stainless steel. My process had a small decrease in
hardness and theoretical tensile strength as compared to the Company E process, with its
microstructure (Fig. 8) showing carbide separation of metallic granules. This conforms
with the method involved in my process which involved exposure to a very high tempera-
ture for a short time period.
The Company O-B process had a significant decrease in hardness and theoretical
tensile strength, with its microstructure (Fig. 7) showing carbide separation of metallic
granules. This indicates that the Company O-B process probably involves thermal treat-
ment to the degree of significant alteration of the mechanical properties of the bracket.
The effect of thermal treatment on bracket metallurgy is shown in Table IV. As the
temperature was raised, the hardness and theoretical tensile strength decreased according-
ly. The microstructures (Figs. 9 through 12) illustrate that increased carbide separtion
occurs with increased temperature exposure. Very high heat, such as a flame, with a
decreased exposure time, also caused significant carbide separation.
It is also interesting to note that there is a difference in hardness between the lower
Volume II
Number 6
Recycling of metallic direct-bond brackets 666

Fig. 10. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket subjected to 475 C. for 10 minutes.
(Magnification, :x500.)

Table IV. Effect of thermal treatment on premolar bracket metallurgy*

I
Theoretical
tensile strength
Hardnessunits
Group Recycling method Rockwell C scale I,OOOpsi Percent Microstructure

1 None 35.0 164 loo Homogeneous

II 475C.) 10 33.0 154 94 Crystal separation
III SOOC.,10 28.5 135 82 Carbideseparation
IV Flame (-1200C.), 2 27.5 132 80 Carbideseparation

kIndustrialTesting Laboratories,Inc., 2350 South 7th Blvd., St. Louis, MO. 63104.

anterior and premolar brackets (Tables III and IV), which could be attributed to the
differences in the amount of cold-working or bulk involved in the fabrication of the two
types of brackets.

Summary and conclusions

A total of 466 used metallic direct-bond-Company A orthodontic brackets were recy-
cled, after which the base torque angle and slot width of each were measured. One
hundred were recycled by Company E, 130 by Company O-C, 13 1 by Company O-B, and
105 by me. In addition, 100 new Company A brackets were measured, recycled by me,
and remeasured as controls. There was no statistically significant difference among the
666 Buchinm

Fig. 11. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket subjected to 800 C. for 10 minutes. (Mag-
nification, x500.)

four methods of recycling in terms of change in base torque angle and slot width. A
slightly statistically significant number of brackets in the control group had a change in
slot width of not more than 0.0015 inch (0.038 mm.), and the number of brackets with any
change in slot width was less than 20 percent. Thus, it appears that the amount of change
is of little clinical relevance.
Eighty new Company R. M. brackets were recycled by the four recycling methods
(twenty per group) and evaluated for retention of magnetic properties. My recycling
method and the method of Company O-B caused a loss of ferromagnetism in the recycled
brackets, while the methods of Company E and Company O-C did not. This indicated that
both Company O-B and I annealed the brackets during our processes.
The effect of the thermal treatment on brackets was evaluated by measuring hardness
and theoretical tensile strength and evaluating microstructures. As temperatures are in-
creased in thermal treatment, the hardness and tensile strength are decreased and the
microstructures illustrate corresponding susceptibility to metallic intergranular corrosion.
The effect of the four recycling methods used in this study on brackets was evaluated
by the same parameters as used to evaluate effects of thermal treatment. The Company
O-C method did not alter the mechanical properties of the bracket metal and would be
considered the most desirable method from this standpoint. The Company E method
caused a subtle alteration in the mechanical properties and would be considered the next
best method. My process would be ranked third in this study. This process annealed the
brackets and caused definite carbide separation, as shown by the microstructures. The
VolumeII
Nrmber 6
Recycling of metallic direct-bond brackets 667

Fig. 12. Photomicrograph of new Rocky Mountain bracket subjected to flame (-1,200 C.) for 2
minutes. (Magnification, x500.)

Company O-B method would then be ranked next in this study. This process annealed the
brackets and caused a significant change in the mechanical properties of the bracket metal.
The clinical significance of metallic structural changes in recycled orthodontic appliances
has yet to be analyzed. Recycling of metallic orthodontic appliances can be of great aid to
the profession, both economically and ecologically, as long as the orthodontist is aware of
the various methods involved in this growing field.
REFERENCES
1. AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials: Metals, mechanical fracture., and corrosion testing: Fatigue;
erosion; effect of temperature, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 10, Philadelphia, 1977. pp. l-27.
2. Fuhner, J. F.: Metal finishing (electropolishing), Metals Plastics Pub. 77: 494-505, 1979.
3. Futterman, N. J.: Electrolytic stainless steel polisher, AM. J. ORTHOD. 28: 652-654, 1942.
4. Gaston, N.: Chrome alloy in orthodontics, AM. J. ORTHOD. 37: 779-796, 1951.
5. Kumar, Rajendra: Physical metallurgy of iron and steel, New York, 1968, Asia Publishing House, pp.
14-21, 33-35, 50-53, 120-127.
6. Lyman, Taylor (editor): Properties and selections of metals. In Metals handbook, ed 8, Metals Park, Ohio,
1972, American Society of Metals, vol. 1, pp. 2, 11, 206, 243-245, 250-254,407,413-417, 423, 484-488,
591.
7. Lyman, Taylor (editor): Atlas of microstructures of industrial alloys. In Metals handbook, ed. 8, Metals
Park, Ohio, 1972, American Society of Metals, vol. 7, pp. 133-137.
8. Lyman, Taylor (editor): Metallography, structures, and phase diagrams. In Metals Handbook, ed. 8, Metals
Park, Ohio, 1972, American Society of Metals, vol. 8, pp. 274-275, 424-425.
9. MacLeod, N .: Quantitative analysis by pyrolysis gas chromatography of thermosetting acrylic resins used in
automotiveenamels. Chromatographia 5: 516, 1972.
666 Buchman

10. Matasa, C. G.: Personal communication.

1 I. Morimoto, K., and lida, T.: Thermal and photodegradation of acrylic resins. Progr. Org. Coattngs, pp.
21-35, 42-47, 1913.
12. OBrien. W., and Ryge, G.: An outline of dental materials and their selection, Philadelphia. 1978. W B.
Saunders Company, 307-3 19.
13. Peyton, F.. and Craig, R.: Restorative dental materials, ed. 5, St. Louis, 1975, The C. V. Mosby
Company, pp. 361-379.
14. Phillips, R. W.: Skinners science of dental materials, ed. 7, Philadelphia, 1973, W. B. Saunders Com-
pany, pp. 217-241, 641-655.
15. Small, Louis: Hardness-Theory and Practice, Ferndale, Mich., 1960, Service Diamond Tool Company, pp.
209-215, 521-523.