scholarly journals Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (22) ◽  
pp. 5197
Author(s):  
Mónica Pinho ◽  
Maria C. Manso ◽  
Ricardo Faria Almeida ◽  
Conchita Martin ◽  
Óscar Carvalho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Thermal Cycling ◽  
Dental Materials ◽  
Surface Damage ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Ceramic Surfaces ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Dental Surface ◽  
The Aesthetic

Bonding strategies within different brackets and dental materials are still a challenge concerning adhesion and dental surface damage. This study compared the shear and tensile bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metallic brackets to enamel, acrylic, and ceramic surfaces after thermal cycling. Dental surfaces were divided into three groups: enamel, ceramic, and acrylic. Each group received stainless-steel and ceramic brackets. After thermal cycling, specimens were randomly divided into two subgroups considering tensile (TBS) or shear bond strength (SBS) test. After the mechanical testing, scanning electron and optical microscopy were performed, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. The two-way ANOVA full factorial design was used to compare TBS, SBS, and ARI on the surface and bracket type (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in TBS, SBS, and ARI values per surface (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009) and type of bracket (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001). The highest mean SBS values were recorded for a ceramic bracket bonded to an acrylic surface (8.4 ± 2.3 MPa). For TBS, a ceramic bracket bonded to acrylic showed the worst performance (5.2 ± 1.8 MPa) and the highest values were found on a metallic bracket bonded to enamel. The adhesion of metallic or ceramic brackets is enough for clinical practice although the damage of the enamel surface after debonding is irreversible and harmful for the aesthetic outcome of the teeth.

scholarly journals Does the CO2 laser reduce bond strength in different types of ceramic brackets?

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-60
Author(s):  
Fábio Lourenço Romano ◽  
Giovanna Pessoti ◽  
Rodrigo Galo ◽  
Jaciara Miranda Gomes-Silva ◽  
Marília Pacífico Lucisano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Co2 Laser ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Tooth Surfaces ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
One Way Anova

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess in vitro the influence of the CO2 laser and of the type of ceramic bracket on the shear bond strength (SBS) to enamel. METHODS: A total of 60 enamel test surfaces were obtained from bovine incisors and randomly assigned to two groups, according to the ceramic bracket used: Allure (A); Transcend (T). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 15): L, laser (10W, 3s); C, no laser, or control. Twenty-four hours after the bonding protocol using Transbond XT, SBS was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine. After debonding, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was evaluated at 10 x magnification and compared among the groups. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s, Mann-Whitney’s and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mean SBS in MPa were: AL = 0.88 ± 0.84; AC = 12.22 ± 3.45; TL = 12.10 ± 5.11; TC = 17.71 ± 6.16. ARI analysis showed that 73% of the specimens presented the entire adhesive remaining on the tooth surfaces (score 3). TC group presented significantly higher SBS than the other groups. The lased specimens showed significantly lower bond strength than the non-lased groups for both tested brackets. CONCLUSION: CO2 laser irradiation decreased SBS values of the polycrystalline ceramic brackets, mainly Allure.

scholarly journals Influence of adhesive and thermal cycling on the bond strength of ceramic brackets to dental ceramic

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 176
Author(s):  
Patricia de Fátima Fraga ◽  
Ana Paula Terossi de Godoi ◽  
Ana Rosa Costa ◽  
Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho ◽  
Mario Vedovello Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Thermal Cycling ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Post Hoc

Aim: This in vitro study investigated the effect of the application of an adhesive, silane and thermal cycling (TC) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets to feldspathic ceramic. Methods: 16 cylinders of feldspathic ceramic were etched with hydrofluoric acid and divided into four groups (n=4): G1 - silane, without TC; G2 – silane, with TC; G3 - adhesive, without TC; G4 - adhesive, with TC. One layer of silane was applied on the surface of cylinders in G1 and G2 e one layer of photo-activated adhesive Single Bond Universal was used in G3 and G4. Ceramic brackets were bonded using Transbond XT. The SBS data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (α=0.05). The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was evaluated at 40× magnification. Results: Silane was more effective than adhesive on the SBS of the brackets to ceramic (p<0.05). TC decreased significantly the SBS values compared with the groups without TC (p<0.05). The ARI results showed predominance of score 0. Conclusions: Groups with silane showed higher SBS than groups with adhesive. TC influence significantly on the bond strength. Regarding ARI, score 0 predominated in all groups.

scholarly journals Effect of Acid Etching, Silane and Thermal Cycling on the Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets to Ceramic

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 734-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natália Regina Santos de Matos ◽  
Ana Rosa Costa ◽  
Heloísa Cristina Valdrighi ◽  
Américo Bortolazzo Correr ◽  
Silvia Amélia Vedovello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Thermal Cycling ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of silanes, thermal cycling and acid etching on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic brackets to feldspathic ceramic. Feldspathic ceramic cylinders (Groups 1, 2, 5 and 6) were etched for 60 s with 10% hydrofluoric acid and Groups 3, 4, 7 and 8, without acid etching. Two layers of silane Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CCP, Groups 1 to 4) and two layers of RelyX Ceramic Primer (RCP, groups 5 to 8) were applied and dried for 60 s. Brackets were bonded to the cylinders with Transbond XT and light-activated for 40 s with Bluephase G2. All specimens were stored in deionized water at 37 °C for 24 h, and the specimens of groups 1, 3, 5 and 7 were submitted to 7,000 thermal cycles (5 °C/55 °C). After storage, the SBS test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were subjected to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated at 8x magnification. The SBS of CCP was significantly greater than of RCP (p<0.05), with or without thermal cycling. Thermal cycling significantly reduced the SBS (p<0.05). The groups submitted to acid etching showed significantly higher SBS than those without acid etching (p<0.05). In conclusion, thermal cycling reduced SBS for all groups. The best ceramic surface treatment for bracket bonding was achieved by acid etching and CCP silane. The ARI results showed predominance of score 0 for all groups.

scholarly journals Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatment and Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Patrapan Juntavee ◽  
Hattanas Kumchai ◽  
Niwut Juntavee ◽  
Dan Nathanson
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Damage Index ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bonding Systems ◽  
Post Hoc

Objective. This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of metal brackets to machinable ceramics and veneering porcelain using different adhesive resins. Materials and methods. Machined ceramic specimens (10 × 10 × 2 mm) were prepared from Vitablocs mark II (Vita) and IPS e.max® CAD (Ivoclar). Layered porcelain fused to metal (IPS d.Sign®, Ivoclar) was used to fabricate PFM specimens (n = 60/group). Half of specimens were etched (9.6% HF, 15 sec), and the rest were nonetched. Three resin bonding systems were used for attaching metal brackets (Victory series™ APC II, 3M) to each group (n = 10): Transbond™ XT (3M), Light Bond™ (Reliance), or Blugloo™ (Ormco), all cured with LED curing unit (Bluephase G1600, Vivadent) for 50 s each. Specimens were immersed in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours prior to shear bond testing (Instron) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Debond surface of ceramic and bracket base was examined for failure mode (FM), Ceramic Damage Index (CDI), and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparisons were used to analyze the differences in bond strength. The chi-squared test was used to determine significance effect of FM, CDI, and ARI. Results. Significant differences in shear bond strength among group were found (p≤0.05) related to ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement. Conclusion. Bond strength of bracket to ceramic is affected by type of ceramic, resin cement, and ceramic surface conditioning. Etching ceramic surface enhanced ceramic-bracket bond strength. However, bond strengths in nontreated ceramic surface groups were still higher than bond strength required for bonding in orthodontic treatment.

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 Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1078-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir E. Bishara ◽  
Adam Wade Ostby ◽  
John Laffoon ◽  
John J. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Failure Patterns ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Failure

Abstract Objective: To test the null hypothesis that no difference in bracket failure characteristics is noted when use of a new ceramic bracket debonding instrument is compared with the use of conventional pliers. Materials and Methods: Thirty maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In group 1, Clarity collapsible ceramic brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were debonded with the use of conventional Utility/Weingart (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) pliers. In group 2, Clarity brackets were debonded with a new Debonding Instrument (3M Unitek). For all teeth, the same bracket bonding system was used. Following debonding, teeth and brackets were examined under 10× magnification for assessment of bracket failure (fracture) and of residual adhesive on the enamel surface. Enamel surfaces were visualized with transillumination prior to bonding and after removal of the residual adhesive, so the effect of the debonding forces could be determined. Results: The results of Adhesive Remnant Index comparisons indicated that a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 8.73; P = .013) in bond failure patterns was apparent when the two groups were compared. Brackets debonded with the new instrument showed a greater tendency for the adhesive to be removed from the tooth during debonding. Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. Although the incidence of enamel damage following debonding was similar in the two groups, the use of the new Debonding Instrument decreased the incidence of bracket fracture.

scholarly journals Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Jungbauer ◽  
Christian Kirschneck ◽  
Christian M. Hammer ◽  
Peter Proff ◽  
Daniel Edelhoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Bonferroni Correction ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Ceramic Restorations ◽  
Silicate Ceramic

Abstract Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi2 test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document