Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Chemical or Mechanical Retention

1992 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl-Magnus Forsberg ◽  
Catharina Hagberg
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
New Type ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Chemical Retention ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
Very High

The study was undertaken to measure and compare the shear bond strengths of a ceramic bracket with chemical retention, a ceramic bracket with a new type of textured base providing mechanical retention, and a metal bracket with foil-mesh base. The tests were performed on 51 extracted human premolars which were randomly divided into three equally large groups (n = 17)—one group for each type of bracket. After debonding, the site of failure was noted and the enamel surface inspected with scanning electron microscopy. The ceramic bracket with chemical retention exhibited significantly higher bond strength than the corresponding bracket with textured base. In comparison with the metal bracket significantly higher bond strengths were recorded for both types of ceramic brackets. The ceramic bracket with mechanical retention and the metal bracket were comparable as regards the site of bond failure. In some cases the chemical bond provided very high values of bond strength. Enamel failure were recorded in three teeth which had been bonded with this type of ceramic bracket.

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Two Bonding Adhesives

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. H. Sam ◽  
S. Y. Chao ◽  
K. H. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

The shear bond strength of two adhesives (Concise® and Dyna-Plus® bonding system) with one type of ceramic bracket was determined in this study. There were statistically significant differences between the bond strengths, with Concisereg; recording higher levels than Dyna-Plus®. Failure sites of Dyna-Plus® were revealed at the enamel/resin, resin/resin, and resin/bracket interfaces; that of the Concise® was mainly at the resin/bracket interface.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Brackets Rebonded with a Fluoride-Releasing and -Recharging Adhesive System

2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 564-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiya Endo ◽  
Rieko Ozoe ◽  
Koichi Shinkai ◽  
Makiko Aoyagi ◽  
Hiroomi Kurokawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Bond Strengths

Abstract Objective: To ascertain the effects of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a fluoride-releasing and -recharging adhesive system with a self-etching primer in comparison with two other types of adhesive system. Materials and Methods: A total of 48 premolars were collected and divided equally into three groups of 16. Each group was assigned one of three adhesive systems: Transbond XT, Transbond Plus, or a fluoride-releasing and -recharging adhesive system, Beauty Ortho Bond. Shear bond strength was measured 24 hours after bracket bonding, with the bonding/debonding procedures repeated twice after the first debonding. A universal testing machine was used to determine shear bond strengths, and bracket/adhesive failure modes were evaluated with the adhesive remnant index after each debonding. Results: At every debonding sequence, all of these three adhesive systems had a shear bond strength of 6 MPa, which is a minimum requirement for clinical use. Transbond XT and Transbond Plus had significantly higher mean shear bond strengths than did Beauty Ortho Bond at each debonding. No significant differences in mean bond strength were observed between the three debondings in each adhesive system. Bond failure at the enamel/adhesive interface occurred more frequently in Beauty Ortho Bond than in Transbond XT or Transbond Plus. Conclusions: The fluoride-releasing and -recharging adhesive system with the self-etching primer (Beauty Ortho Bond) had clinically sufficient shear bond strength in repeated bracket bonding; this finding can help orthodontists to decrease the risk of damage to enamel at debonding.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Surface Treatments for Ceramic Bracket Base on Bond Strength of Rebonded Brackets

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique Kruger Guarita ◽  
Alexa Helena Köhler Moresca ◽  
Estela Maris Losso ◽  
Alexandre Moro ◽  
Ricardo Cesar Moresca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Base

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of rebonded ceramic brackets after subjecting the bracket base to different treatments. Seventy-five premolars were selected and randomly distributed into five groups (n=15), according to the type of the bracket surface treatment: I, no treatment, first bonding (control); II, sandblasting with aluminum oxide; III, sandblasting + silane; IV, silica coating + silane; and V, silicatization performed in a laboratory (Rocatec system). The brackets were fixed on an enamel surface with Transbond XT resin without acid etching. The brackets were then removed and their bases were subjected to different treatments. Thereafter, the brackets were fixed again to the enamel surface and the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) test. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was then evaluated for each specimen. Data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α=0.05). A statistically significant difference was observed only between Rocatec and the other groups; the Rocatec group showed the lowest SBS values. The highest SBS values were observed for group 1, without any significant difference from the values for groups II, III and IV. Most groups had a higher percentage of failures at the enamel-resin interface (score 1). It was concluded that the surface treatments of rebonded ceramic brackets were effective, with SBS values similar to that of the control group, except Rocatec group.

scholarly journals In vitro testing of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different novel CAD/CAM ceramics

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-243
Author(s):  
Eglal Ahmed Ghozy ◽  
Marwa Sameh Shamaa ◽  
Ahmed A. El-Bialy
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Ceramic Substrates ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Ceramic Blocks ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Background. The present study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of metal bracket (MB) and ceramic bracket (CB) bonded to different CAD/CAM ceramic substrates etched with hydrofluoric acid (HFA) vs. phosphoric acid (PA). Methods. A total of 120 CAD/CAM ceramic blocks in 12 groups were fabricated from three different CAD/CAM ceramic materials: VITABLOCS Mark II, VITAENAMIC, and IPS e.max CAD. Each ceramic material group was divided into two etching groups: one treated with 9.5% HFA and the other treated with 37%. Sixty metal and CBs of the upper right central incisor were bonded to the HFA-treated blocks. Another 60 metal and CBs were bonded to the PA treated blocks. All the bonded specimens were thermocycled before shear bond strength (SBS) testing. Then the bond failure mode was recorded Results. There were no significant differences in SBS values between the three CAD/CAM ceramic materials. The HFA-treated specimens exhibited significantly higher SBS values than the PA-treated specimens. Also, the SBS values of CBs were significantly higher than the metal brackets (MBs). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was 4 for most of the groups, indicating that almost no adhesive remained on the porcelain surface. Conclusion. The CAD/CAM ceramic type did not influence SBS; however, HFA exhibited significantly higher SBS compared to PA.

scholarly journals Comparison of Shear Strength of Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Depending on Surface Treatment: An In Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 150-155
Author(s):  
Sibel Cetik ◽  
Thaï Hoang Ha ◽  
Léa Sitri ◽  
Hadrien Duterme ◽  
Viet Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Preparation ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Abstract Objectives Due to the high demand for all-ceramic restorations, monolithic zirconia restorations are nowadays frequently used. With the demand for adult orthodontic treatments, orthodontists need to be mindful of the quality of their brackets bonding to this type of material, as it requires special conditioning. This study aimed to compare different surface treatments of zirconia when bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets. The objectives are to compare the shear bond strength; the amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of the material; the incidence of adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failures; and the occurrence of zirconia fractures. Materials and Methods Forty monolithic blocks of zirconia of a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm were prepared and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20): metallic or ceramic brackets. Each group was subsequently divided into two subgroups (n = 10) depending on the surface preparation (laser treatment or airborne particle abrasion): SMB (airborne particle abrasion, metal bracket), SCB (airborne particle abrasion, ceramic bracket), LMB (laser; metal bracket), and LCB (laser, ceramic bracket). The samples were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index and the occurrence of zirconia fractures and different types of failures were assessed by optical and electron microscopy. Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. Results The differences were significant between the metallic (SMB, LMB) and ceramic (SCB, LCB) bracket groups with regard to shear bond strength, with respectively 23.29 ± 5.34 MPa, 21.59 ± 4.03 MPa, 20.06 ± 4.05 MPa, and 17.55 ± 3.88 MPa. In terms of surface treatment, no statistical differences were found between the different groups. Conclusion Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia. The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: An in-vitro Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-24
Author(s):  
Gaurav Chaudhary ◽  
Pawan Kumar Chandra ◽  
Rakesh Sharma ◽  
P Narayana Prasad ◽  
Sonia Gera
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Group D ◽  
Base Group ◽  
Bracket Base ◽  
Base Design

Objective: To evaluate the influence of bracket base designs on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to natural teeth and to determine the common site of bond failure.Materials & Method: 120 therapeutically extracted maxillary first premolars were divided into six groups of 20 samples each and were mounted in resin blocks. Each sample was bonded with bracket of that particular group and subjected to thermocycling. The shear bond strength was measured using Universal Testing Machine. After debonding, the teeth and brackets were examined under stereo-microscope for adhesive remnant index.Result: Ceramic brackets with ball base design (Group A) yielded statistically highest shear bond strength followed by microcrystalline base (Group D), dimple base (Group E), mesh base (Group C) and dove tail base (Group B) design. Ceramic brackets yield higher bond strength than metal brackets (Group F) irrespective of base design. Insignificant difference was seen between Group A and Group D and between Group B and Group C. Bond failure between adhesive and bracket (Type 3) was seen in 80% of the brackets with ball base design and bond failure between adhesive and bracket (Type 1) was seen in 80% of brackets with dove tail base design.Conclusion: Bracket base design is an important consideration for shear bond strength. Base design with more number of undercuts offer higher shear bond strength. Ceramic brackets with more number of mechanical undercuts were less likely to bond failure at adhesive bracket base interface and vice versa

scholarly journals Effects of silane application on the shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel surface

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Pinandi Sri Pudyani ◽  
Setiarini Widiarsanti
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Orthodontic Appliances ◽  
Shear Mode ◽  
Enamel Structure ◽  
Fixed Orthodontic Appliances ◽  
Bonding Failure ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Background: Fixed orthodontic appliances with ceramic brackets are used frequently to fulfill the aesthetic demand of patient through orthodontic treatment. Ceramic brackets have some weaknesses such as bond strength and enamel surface damage. In high bond strength the risk of damage in enamel surfaces increases after debonding. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the effect of silane on base of bracket and adhesive to shear bond strength and enamel structure of ceramic bracket. Method: Sixteen extracted upper premolars were randomly divided into four groups based on silane or no silane on the bracket base and on the adhesive surface. Design of the base on ceramic bracket in this research was microcrystalline to manage the influence of mechanical interlocking. Samples were tested in shear mode on a universal testing machine after attachment. Following it, adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were used to assess bond failure site. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-way Anova and the Mann-Whitney test. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) with a magnification of 2000x was used to observe enamel structure after debonding. Result: Shear bond strength was increased between group without silane and group with silane on the base of bracket (p<0,05). There was no significance different between group without silane and group with silane on adhesive (p<0,05). Conclusion: Application of silane on base of bracket increases shear bond strength, however, application of silane on adhesive site does not increase shear bond strength of ceramic bracket. Most bonding failure occurred at the enamel adhesive interface and damage occurred on enamel structure in group contains silane of ceramic bracket.

scholarly journals Effect of Simplified Bonding on Shear Bond Strength between Ceramic Brackets and Dental Zirconia

Materials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ga-Youn Ju ◽  
Soram Oh ◽  
Bum-Soon Lim ◽  
Hyun-Seung Lee ◽  
Shin Hye Chung
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Dihydrogen Phosphate ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Long Term Stability ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long term stability of shear bond strength (SBS) when 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) containing universal adhesive was used in the ceramic bracket bonding on dental zirconia. Twenty human maxillary incisors were collected. The ceramic bracket was bonded on the buccal enamel surface after the acid-etching and orthodontic primer application (Group CON). Sixty zirconia specimens were sintered, sandblasted and divided into three experimental groups; group CP—ceramic primer followed by an orthodontic primer; group U—universal adhesive; group CU—ceramic primer followed by a universal adhesive. For each specimen, the bracket was bonded onto the treated surface with composite resin (Transbond XT, 3M ESPE). The SBS tested before (CON0, CP0, U0, CU0) and after the artificial aging (CON1, CP1, U1, CU1). The data were statistically analyzed with the Kruskal–Wallis test at a significance level of 0.05. The mean SBS of CON0, CP0, U0 and CU0 were within the clinically acceptable range without significant differences. After the aging process, SBS decreased in all groups. Among the aged groups, CP1 showed the highest SBS. Based on the results, when bonding ceramic brackets to a dental zirconia surface, we can conclude that ceramic primer used with an orthodontic primer, rather than using a universal adhesive, is recommended.

scholarly journals The Effects of Prophylactic Ozone Pretreatment of Enamel on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded with Total or Self-Etch Adhesive Systems

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. 367-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sevi Burcak Cehreli ◽  
Asli Guzey ◽  
Neslihan Arhun ◽  
Alev Cetinsahin ◽  
Bahtiyar Unver
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Orthophosphoric Acid ◽  
Ozone Treatment ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study is to determine (1) shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded with self-etch and total-etch adhesive after ozone treatment (2) bond failure interface using a modified Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI).Methods: 52 premolars were randomly assigned into four groups (n=13) and received the following treatments: Group 1: 30 s Ozone (Biozonix, Ozonytron, Vehos Medikal, Ankara, Turkey) application + Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (SEP) (3M) + Transbond XT (3M), Group 2: Transbond Plus SEP + Transbond XT, Group 3: 30 s Ozone application + 37% orthophosphoric acid + Transbond XT Primer (3M) + Transbond XT, Group 4: 37% orthophosphoric acid + Transbond XT Primer + Transbond XT. All samples were stored in deionised water at 37oC for 24 hours. Shear debonding test was performed by applying a vertical force to the base of the bracket at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min.Results: The mean SBS results were Group 1: 10.48 MPa; Group 2: 8.89 MPa; Group 3: 9.41 MPa; Group 4: 9.82 MPa. One-Way Variance Test revealed that the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P=0.267). Debonded brackets were examined by an optical microscope at X16 magnification to determine the bond failure interface using a modified ARI. The results were (mean) Group 1: 2.38; Group 2: 1.31; Group 3: 3.00; Group 4: 1.92. Multiple comparisons showed that Groups 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 were statistically different (P=0.014, P<.001 and P=0.025).Conclusions: Ozone treatment prior to bracket bonding does not affect the shear bond strength. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:367-373)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document