Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to CAD/CAM Provisional Materials: Influence of Surface Treatments and a Novel Adhesive System

Adult orthodontics may confront problems related to the bonding performance of orthodontic brackets to new generation restorative materials used for crown or laminate restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to two new generation CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite after different surface treatments. Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, hydrofluoric acid (9%), sandblasting (50 μm Al2O3), and silane were applied to the surfaces of 120 CAD/CAM specimens with 2 mm thickness and then ceramic brackets were bonded to the treated surfaces of the specimens. Bond strength was evaluated using the shear bond strength test. According to the results, CAD/CAM block types and surface treatment methods have significant effects on shear bond strength. The lowest bond strength values were found in the specimens treated with silane (3.35 ± 2.09 MPa) and highest values were found in the specimens treated with sandblast (8.92 ± 2.77 MPa). Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid surface treatment led to the most durable bonds for the two types of CAD/CAM blocks in the present study. In conclusion, different surface treatments affect the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite. Among the evaluated treatments, sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid application resulted in sufficient bonding strength to ceramic brackets for both of the CAD/CAM materials.

Download Full-text

Effect of surface treatment of prefabricated teeth on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1590/2177-6709.22.4.047-052.oar ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 47-52 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marina Cumerlato ◽

Eduardo Martinelli de Lima ◽

Leandro Berni Osorio ◽

Eduardo Gonçalves Mota ◽

Luciane Macedo de Menezes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Positive Correlation ◽

Diamond Bur ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effects of grinding, drilling, sandblasting, and ageing prefabricated teeth (PfT) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets, as well as the effects of surface treatments on the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Methods: One-hundred-ninety-two PfT were divided into four groups (n = 48): Group 1, no surface treatment was done; Group 2, grinding was performed with a cylindrical diamond bur; Group 3, two drillings were done with a spherical diamond bur; Group 4, sandblasting was performed with 50-µm aluminum oxide. Before the experiment, half of the samples stayed immersed in distilled water at 37oC for 90 days. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and shear strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine. SBS were compared by surface treatment and by ageing with two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. ARI scores were compared between surface treatments with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test. Results: Surface treatments on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets (p< 0.01), result not observed with ageing (p= 0.45). Groups II, III, and IV showed higher SBS and greater ARI than the Group 1 (p< 0.05). SBS was greater in the groups 3 and 4 (drilling, sandblasting) than in the Group 2 (grinding) (p< 0.05). SBS and ARI showed a positive correlation (Spearman’s R2= 0.57; p< 0.05). Conclusion: Surface treatment on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets, however ageing did not show any relevance. Sandblasting and drilling showed greater SBS than grinding. There was a positive correlation between SBS and ARI.

Download Full-text

Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/022307-90.1 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 78 (3) ◽

pp. 531-536 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Mona A. Montasser ◽

James L. Drummond ◽

Carla A. Evans

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Adhesive Systems ◽

Adhesive Remnant Index ◽

Acid Etch ◽

The Mean ◽

Self Etch

Abstract Objective: To compare rebonding of orthodontic brackets based on the hypothesis that no difference would be found between the adhesive systems with respect to shear bond strength, mode of failure, and clinical failure rates. Materials and Methods: The three adhesive systems included two self-etch primers (Transbond and M-Bond) and a conventional phosphoric acid etch (Rely-a-Bond). The sample size was 20 premolars for each adhesive system. The shear bond strength was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with the bonding/debonding procedures repeated two times after the first debonding. Bond strength, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and failure sites were evaluated for each debonding. Statistical analysis consisted of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Scheffè analysis. The clinical portion evaluated 15 patients over a 12-month period. Results: The mean shear bond strengths after the first, second, and third debondings for Rely-a-Bond were 8.4 ± 1.8, 10.3 ± 2.4, and 14.1 ± 3.3 MPa, respectively; for Transbond 11.1 ± 4.6, 13.6 ± 4.5, and 12.9 ± 4.4 MPa, respectively; and for M-Bond 8.7 ± 2.7, 10.4 ± 2.4, and 12.4 ± 3.4 MPa, respectively. After the three debondings the mean shear bond strength increased significantly from the first to the third debonding for Rely-a-Bond and M-bond (P ≤ .001), but did not change for Transbond (P = .199). Conclusions: The original hypothesis is not rejected. The two self-etching primers showing higher or comparable bond strength to the conventional phosphoric etch with less adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after the first debonding. With repeated bonding/debonding, the differences in the bond strength, ARI, and failure site were not significantly different. There was no difference in the clinical performance of the three adhesive systems (P = .667).

Download Full-text

Bond strength of orthodontic brackets to polymethylmethacrylate: effect of the surface treatment and adhesive system

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial ◽

10.24873/j.rpemd.2021.01.818 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 62 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Rita Cardoso ◽

◽

Joana Godinho ◽

Luís Jardim ◽

◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Failure Mode ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Control Group ◽

Universal Adhesive ◽

Machine Failure

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of the surface treatment and adhesive system on the shear bond strength and the failure mode of orthodontic brackets bonded to polymethylmethacrylate surfaces. Methods: Ninety metal brackets (n=15) were bonded to aged discs of polymethylmethacrylate SR Ivocron subjected to three surface conditions (no treatment; sandblasting with 50-μm aluminum oxide; roughening with a tungsten bur), using two combinations of adhesives (methylmethacrylate monomer + Transbond XT Primer; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive) followed by the composite Transbond XT. In the control group, metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT to 15 human mandibular incisors. The specimens were thermocycled, stored in distilled water (37ºC, 7 days), and tested in shear, using an Instron universal machine. Failure mode was classified according to the adhesive remnant index using a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed with an analysis of variance and posthoc tests (p<0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between the bracket bond strength to polymethylmethacrylate with different surface treatments (p<0.001). Sandblasting with aluminum oxide was superior to tungsten bur roughening. The adhesive system did not significantly influence the shear bond strength nor the failure mode (p=0.8415). All experimental groups showed lower bond strengths than the control group (p=0.1566). Conclusions: Mechanical surface treatment significantly influenced the bracket’s bond strength to polymethylmethacrylate. Sandblasting with aluminum oxide was the most effective mechanical treatment. The weakest adhesive link was found at the acrylic-adhesive interface. Orthodontic bonding to polymethylmethacrylate was weaker than bonding to enamel, regardless of the surface treatment and the adhesive used.

Download Full-text