Direct bonding to porcelain

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

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.

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Ceramic materials are constantly evolving, achieving good functionality and aesthetics. Bonding to ceramics may be difficult because of high toxicity procedures and risk of surface damage. The review aims to answer several research questions: Is there a golden standard for bonding to ceramic? Are there adhesives or types of photopolymerization lamps that produce a higher bond strength on certain types of ceramics rather than others? Articles focusing on the bonding process of orthodontic attachments to ceramic surfaces searched in Pubmed, Medline and Embase, published between 1990 and 2018 were revised. Exclusions concerned bonding to non-ceramic surfaces, bonding to ceramic surfaces that are not destined for orthodontics or laser usage. Forty-nine articles that matched the inclusion criteria were researched. The following categories of original research articles were compared and discussed: metallic brackets bonding to ceramic surfaces, ceramic brackets to ceramic surfaces, bonding to new types of ceramics, such as zirconia, lithium disilicate, different photopolymerisation devices used on bonding to ceramics. Some types of adhesive may achieve minimal bond strength (6-8 MPa) even on glazed ceramic. Ceramic surface preparation may be done by sandblasting or hydrofluoric acid (60s application and 9.6%) with generally similar results. Studies rarely show any statistical difference and there are reduced number of samples in most studies. Ceramic brackets show better adhesion to ceramic surfaces and the same bonding protocol is advised. A higher bond strength may lead to ceramic surface. Few studies focus on newer types of ceramics; additional research is necessary. There is no clear evidence that a certain type of photopolymerization device produces higher shear bond strength values.

Shear bond strength between gingival composite resin and glazed gingival porcelain for implant-supported prostheses

This study determined the shear bond strength (SBS) between an indirect gingival composite resin and glazed gingival porcelain after various surface treatments. A total of 176 porcelain disks with natural glazing were used and assigned to one of four groups: no surface treatment, airborne-particle abrasion, hydrofluoric acid etching, or a combination of airborne-particle abrasion followed by hydrofluoric acid etching. Each group was divided into two subgroups: one subgroup was unprimed, and the other was silanized. An indirect composite resin was then bonded to the porcelain disks. Half of the specimens in each group (n = 11) were exposed to 5000 thermocycles. SBSs were measured, and data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Steel-Dwass tests. Among silanized specimens, those treated with the combination of airborne-particle abrasion and hydrofluoric acid etching exhibited the highest bond strengths both before and after thermocycling. However, the SBS values of the silanized and unprimed hydrofluoric acid etched specimens did not differ significantly. Airborne-particle abrasion followed by hydrofluoric acid etching with silane application yielded stronger, more durable bonds between the indirect gingival composite resin and glazed gingival porcelain.

Shear Bond Strength of the Metal Bracket to Zirconium Ceramic Restoration Treated by the Nd: YAG Laser and Other Methods: An In Vitro Microscopic Study

Introduction: Providing reliable bonding of the bracket base and the zirconia surface is required to apply orthodontic force. The purpose of this scientific experiment was to evaluate the efficacy of three different methods of surface preparation for Zirconia, including surface roughening, sandblasting and the Nd: YAG laser, in the shear bond strength (SBS) of the orthodontic brackets. Methods: Fifty-four discs of zirconia were divided into three groups of 18: A) Hydrofluoric acid etching, B) sandblasting, and C) Nd: irradiation using the power of 1.5 W for 10 seconds. After bonding the brackets, the samples were slowly thermo-cycled (1000 times) for 24 hours. The SBS test was performed by a universal testing machine at a head speed of 0.5 mm/min. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored at a magnification of 10 in the stereo microscope. All data were collected and analyzed using the variance, Kruskal-Wallis, Tukey, Don, and Weibull tests (α = 0.05). Results: The HF acid etching group (6.11± 0.94 MPa) had the highest SBS, which was followed by the laser group (6 ± 0.61 MPa) and the sandblast group (3.1080 ± 0.82 MPa). There was a significant statistical difference between the laser and HF groups and the sandblast group (P < 0.05) and no significant difference between the HF group and the laser group (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Based on the obtained bond strength, the Nd: YAG laser with a power of 1.5 W could be a substitute treatment method for the HF acid-etching.

Orthodontic Bonding: Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasing, and clinicians often have to place brackets on various surfaces aside from enamel. It is crucial to know what materials or instruments are required to bond brackets to each surface.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to serve as a clinical guideline for the safest and most effective approaches taken to condition various surfaces for bonding to orthodontic brackets and provide background knowledge on the subject.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed and EBSCO databases were searched, along with the use of Google Scholar search engine, to obtain relevant articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals, from 1955 to 2020. Keywords used were Shear bond strength; Orthodontic bracket; Base design; Etching; Sandblasting; Laser; Conditioning; Enamel; Ceramic; Porcelain; Gold; Amalgam; Composite.

CONCLUSION

Even though orthophosphoric acid is the most widely used enamel conditioning agent, laser etching should be considered to avoid enamel decalcification. Hydrofluoric acid is the current standard for ceramic conditioning; however, its use intraorally should be minimized due to its toxicity. Orthophosphoric acid, CoJet-Sand air abrasion, and laser etching are viable alternatives for conditioning ceramic. Monobond Etch & Prime is toxic and should not be used intraorally. Composite can be conditioned by bur roughening, and the use of ceramic brackets is recommended. Amalgam and gold surfaces can be conditioned adequately by air abrasion. Despite the claims of many authors, the maximum shear forces that orthodontic brackets are subjected to are not 6-8 mega pascal (MPa). Further investigation is required in that regard. More in vivo studies need to be performed to confirm the in vitro results.

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

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.

Lithium di silicate ceramic surface treated with Er,Cr:YSGG and other conditioning regimes bonded to orthodontic bracket

Aim

To assess bond integrity and modes of failure of metallic brackets to lithium disilicate ceramics (LDC) conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser (ECL).

Material and methods

Sixty LDC were arbitrarily allocated into six groups (n = 15) according to the type of ceramic surface conditioning treatment. Group 1 surface treated with silane (S) only, group 2 surface etched with hydrofluoric acid (HF)+ S, group 3 surface conditioned with HF+ ultrasonic bath (UB)+ S, group 4 sand blasting (SB) of glass ceramic surface with 50 µm Al₂O₃, group 5 surface conditioned with self-etch ceramic primer (SECP) and in group 6 surface treated with ECL + S. After conditioning, the specimens were positioned in a universal testing device for shear bond strength (SBS) testing. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to determine sites of bond failure. Among experimental groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey multiple comparison test was used at a significance level of (p < 0.05).

Results

The highest SBS values were observed in group 3 HF+ UB + S (18.21 ± 1.241) and the lowest SBS values were displayed group 1 surface treated with S only (5.21 ± 0.23). Specimens surface conditioned in group 2 with HF+ S (17.85 ± 1.25), group 3 HF+ UB + S (18.21 ± 1.241) and group 6 ECL + S (17.09 ± 1.114) unveiled comparable SBS values (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

LDC conditioned with ECL at (4.5 W and 30 Hz) has a potential to be used in clinical settings alternate to HF acid.

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Aim

of this study was to analyze Shear Bond Strength (SBS) and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) of ceramic and metallic orthodontic brackets bonded to zirconia or lithium-disilicate ceramics used for prosthetic restorations, conditioned with hydrofluoric acid (HFA) or phosphoric acid (PhA), as well as to determine the Porcelain Fracture Index (PFI), in order to examine the condition of the ceramic surface after debonding.

Material and methods

The research was conducted on 96 prepared all-ceramic samples divided into 8 groups combined from the type of ceramic material, orthodontic brackets, and surface conditioning. SBS was tested with Universal Testing Machine, and the samples were analyzed using a Scanning Electron Microscope, to determine ARI and PFI. Statistical data were processed using ANOVA, with the level of significance α = 0.05.

Results

Lithium-disilicate showed better bond strength in almost all groups. However, no significant difference between the groups was noticed and none of the factors had a significant influence on the mean values of SBS (p>0.05). Nevertheless, ARI significantly depended on the type of bracket (p = 0.005), and PFI significantly depended on the type of etchant (p = 0.029).

Conclusion

The use of HFA for surface etching of zirconia and lithium-disilicate, does not cause a significant increase in the SBS values as compared to etching with PhA and silane application. Furthermore, HFA can weaken the surface structure of the ceramic, and considering its toxicity, might not be the best suitable conditioner prior to orthodontic bonding to lithium disilicate, and in particular to zirconia, also taking into account its crystalline structure.

Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials

Background

This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of ceramic brackets to machine-able ceramics and ceramic veneering metal.

Material and Methods

Machined ceramic specimens (10x10x1.5 mm) were prepared from Empress® CAD (EP), and e.max® CAD (EM). Ceramic veneering metal specimens (PF) were fabricated from sintered d.Sign® porcelain (1.27 mm thickness) over d.Sign®10 metal (0.23 mm thickness). Each ceramic was divided into 3-groups and treated surface by Er-YAG laser (LE) or etching with 9.6% HF acid for 5 seconds (A5) or 15 seconds (A15). Resin adhesive (Transbond™-XT) was used for attaching ceramic brackets for each group (n=15) and cured with LED (Bluephase®) for 50 seconds. Specimens were immersed in distilled water for 24 hours before testing for shear bond at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed for the differences in bond strength with ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). De-bond surfaces were microscopically examined.

Results

Bond strength (MPa) were 12.65±1.14 for EMA5, 14.50±2.21 for EMA15, 13.97±1.17 for EMLE, 12.40±1.95 for PFA5, 15.85±3.13 for PFA15, 14.06±2.17 for PFLE, 12.12±1.54 for EPA5, 15.65±1.57 for EPA15, 12.89±1.17 for EPLE. Significant differences in bond strength among groups were found related to surface treatment (p<0.05), but not significant difference upon type of ceramics (p>0.05). A15 provided higher bond strength than LE and A5 (P<0.05). No damage of ceramic surface upon de-bonding was indicated except for A15 tends to exhibit ditching. LE showed more uniform treated surface for bonding and no surface destruction upon de-bond compared to others.

Conclusions

Bond strength was affected by surface treatment. Both LE and A15 treated surface provided higher bond strength than A5. Considering possibly inducing defect on ceramic surface, LE seems to provide better favorable surface preparation than others. Treated ceramic surface with Er-YAG prior to bracket bonding is recommended.

Key words:Ceramic, ceramic bracket, Er-YAG, laser, shear bond strength, surface treatment.

Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to surface-treated feldspathic porcelain after thermocycling

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of six different surface conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to feldspathic porcelain.

Materials and methods:

A total of 60 feldspathic porcelain disks were fabricated and divided into six subgroups including 10 specimens in each. Specimens were first treated one of the following surface conditioning methods, namely, 37% phosphoric acid (G-H3PO4), 9.4% hydrofluoric acid (G-HF), grinding with diamond burs (G-Grinding), Nd:YAG laser (G-Nd:YAG), Airborne-particle abrasion (G-Abrasion). Specimens were also coated with silane without surface treatment for comparison (G-Untreated). A total of 60 ceramic brackets were bonded to porcelain surfaces with a composite resin and then subjected to thermocycling 2500× between 5°C and 55°C. The shear bond strength test was carried out using a universal testing device at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure types were classified according to the adhesive remnant index. Analysis of variance and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05). Microstructure of untreated and surface-treated specimens was investigated by scanning electron microscopy.

Results:

Using G-Abrasion specimens resulted in the highest shear bond strength value of 8.58 MPa for feldspathic porcelain. However, the other specimens showed lower values: G-Grinding (6.51 MPa), G-Nd:YAG laser (3.37 MPa), G-HF (2.71 MPa), G-H3PO4 (1.17 MPa), and G-Untreated (0.93 MPa).

Conclusion:

Airborne-particle abrasion and grinding can be used as surface treatment techniques on the porcelain surface for a durable bond strength. Hydrofluoric acid and phosphoric acid etching methods were not convenient as surface treatment methods for the feldspathic porcelain.

Effect of different surface treatments for ceramic bracket base on bond strength of rebonded brackets

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.

Evaluation of the effect of four surface conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of metal bracket to porcelain surface

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of superpulse CO2 laser irradiation and deglazing of porcelain surfaces on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal orthodontic brackets, and compared it with two conventional etching techniques.

METHODS

Forty-eight Feldspathic porcelain fused to metal specimens embedded in cylindrical acrylic resin tubes were fabricated, and all the specimens were divided into four groups. In Group 1, the specimens were roughened with a diamond bur and etched with hydrofluoric acid (HFA) gel for 4 min. In Group 2, the specimens were roughened with a bur and irradiated by a CO2 laser with a 2 W power setting for 20 sec. In Group 3, the specimens were only irradiated by a CO2 laser. In Group 4, the porcelain surface was sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide. Before bonding, the bracket silane was applied on the porcelain surfaces. SBS was evaluated by a Universal testing machine (Zwickroll, Germany). The remaining adhesive after the bond failure was evaluated using an adhesive remnant index (ARI). Statistical analysis was conducted by analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESULTS

ANOVA revealed significant differences in SBS among the four groups (p<0.001). Group 1 demonstrated significantly higher bond strength (13.13±2.47) when compared with the other groups. Group 2 showed higher bond strength (9.60±1.91) when compared with group 4 (6.40±1.67) (p=0.016). Group 1 displayed the highest ARI scores among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Deglazing combined with HFA etching produced the highest bond strength, but CO2 laser irradiation provided adequate bond strength and allowed for elimination of the HFA step. Deglazing is not recommended as a preliminary step before CO2 laser conditioning.

Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to porcelain surface: in vitro study

Purpose:

To compare the effects of different porcelain surface treatment methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) and fracture mode of orthodontic brackets.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy feldspathic porcelain disk samples mounted in acrylic resin blocks were divided into seven groups (n=10) according to type of surface treatment: I, Diamond bur; II, Orthosphoric acid (OPA); III, hydrofluoric acid (HFA); IV, sandblasted with aluminum oxide (SB); V, SB+HFA; VI, Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; VII, Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser. Brackets were affixed to treated all-porcelain surfaces with a silane bonding agent and adhesive resin and subjected to SBS testing. Specimens were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI), and failure modes were assessed quantitatively under a stereomicroscope and morphologically under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and the post-hoc Tukey test, with the significance level set at 0.05.

Results:

The highest SBS values were observed for Group V, with no significant difference between Groups V and III. SBS values for Group I were significantly lower than those of all other groups tested. The porcelain/resin interface was the most common site of failure in Group V (40%) and Group III (30%), whereas other groups showed various types of bond failure, with no specific location pre-dominating, but with some of the adhesive left on the porcelain surfaces (ARI scores 2 or 3) in most cases.

Conclusion:

The current findings indicate that a diamond bur alone is unable to sufficiently etch porcelain surfaces for bracket bonding. Moreover, SB and HFA etching used in combination results in a significantly higher shear-bond strength than HFA or SB alone. Finally, laser etching with either an Nd:YAG or Er:YAG laser was found to be more effective and less time-consuming than both HFA acid and SB for the treatment of deglazed feldspathic porcelain.

Effect of Ti:sapphire laser on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to ceramic surfaces

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

With increasing demand for orthodontic treatments in adults, orthodontists continue to debate the optimal way to prepare ceramic surfaces for bonding. This study evaluated the effects of a Ti:sapphire laser on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to two ceramic surfaces (feldspathic and IPS Empress e-Max) and the results were compared with those using two other lasers (Er:YAG and Nd:YAG) and 'conventional' techniques, i.e., sandblasting (50 µm) and hydrofluoric (HF) acid.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 150 ceramic discs were prepared and divided into two groups. In each group, the following five subgroups were prepared: Ti:sapphire laser, Nd:YAG laser, Er:YAG laser, sandblasting, and HF acid. Mandibular incisor brackets were bonded using a light-cured adhesive. The samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C and then thermocycled. Extra samples were prepared and examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SBS testing was performed and failure modes were classified. ANOVA and Tukey's HSD tests were used to compare SBS among the five subgroups (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Feldspathic and IPS Empress e-Max ceramics had similar SBS values. The Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser (16.76 ± 1.37 MPa) produced the highest mean bond strength, followed by sandblasting (12.79 ± 1.42 MPa) and HF acid (11.28 ± 1.26 MPa). The Er:YAG (5.43 ± 1.21 MPa) and Nd:YAG laser (5.36 ± 1.04 MPa) groups were similar and had the lowest SBS values. More homogeneous and regular surfaces were observed in the ablation pattern with the Ti:sapphire laser than with the other treatments by SEM analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, Ti:sapphire laser- treated surfaces had the highest SBS values. Therefore, this technique may be useful for the pretreatment of ceramic surfaces as an alternative to 'conventional' techniques.

Effect of femtosecond laser treatment on the shear bond strength of a metal bracket to prepared porcelain surface

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of femtosecond laser treatment (Group FS) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of a metal bracket to prepared porcelain surface, and to compare it with other surface treatment techniques [50 μm Al2O3 sandblasting (Group SB), 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel (Group HF), and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG laser) (Group NY)].

BACKGROUND DATA

Because of the increasing number of adult patients in current orthodontic practice, achieving sufficient bond strength of composite resin to porcelain restorations without bond failure during the treatment is a challenge for orthodontists.

METHODS

In total, 80 glazed feldspathic porcelain samples were prepared and randomly assigned to four groups of 20. Treated surfaces were treated with a silane agent. Brackets were bonded to porcelain samples. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h and then thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5° and 55°C. The SBS of the brackets was tested with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, until bonding failure occurred. The data were analyzed statistically using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tamhane multiple comparisons tests. The results of ANOVA indicated that the SBS values varied according to the surface treatment method (p<0.001).

RESULTS

Results of the Tamhane post-hoc tests indicated that the bond strength in Group NY (5.11±1.53) was significantly lower than the other groups (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among Groups SB (9.07±3.76), HF (9.09±3.51), and FS (11.58±4.16) (p=0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that FS treatment produced high SBS of the processes assessed; therefore, it appears to be an effective method for bonding orthodontic metal brackets to prepared porcelain surfaces.

Influence of surface treatments on bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic material

This study evaluated the effect of four different surface treatments methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic and metal brackets to Vita Enamic (VE) CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic. A total of 240 plates (10 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm) were cut from VE ceramic blocks and divided into two groups. In each group, four subgroups were prepared by hydrofluoric acid (HF); phosphoric acid (H3PO4); diamond ceramic grinding bur; and silica coating using CoJet system (CJ). Maxillary central incisor metal (Victory Series) and ceramic (Clarity) brackets were bonded with light-cure composite and then stored in artificial saliva for 1 week and thermocycled. The SBS test was performed, and the failure types were classified with adhesive remnant index scores. Surface morphology of the ceramic was characterized after treatment using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD test, and Weibull analysis. SBS was significantly affected by the type of bracket and by type of treatment (P < 0.001). Specimens treated with CJ presented with significantly higher SBS compared to other groups (P < 0.05). Improvements in SBS values (MPa) were found in the following order: CJ > HF > Bur > H3PO4. Ceramic bracket showed higher SBS compared to metal bracket. Adhesive failures between the ceramic and composite resin were the predominant mode of failure in all groups. Surface treatment of VE CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic with silica coating enhanced the adhesion with ceramic and metal brackets.

Effects of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns

INTRODUCTION

An increase in the number of adults seeking orthodontic treatment has given rise to new problems for orthodontists, one of which is the need to bond orthodontic brackets to teeth restored with temporary crowns. Many prefabricated temporary crowns are composed of polycarbonates or thermoplastic polymers; bonding to these surfaces is complex because of the composition, surface integrity, and resistance of the crowns. The bond must be sufficient to resist breakage from the forces of orthodontic biomechanics and oral functions including mastication. The purpose of this study was to test, in vitro, the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns.

METHODS

Eighty polycarbonate crowns for the maxillary right central incisor were evenly divided into 4 groups, and the facial surfaces were subjected to one of the following conditions: group A (control): no treatment; group B: the surface was sandblasted with 50 mum aluminum oxide particles; group C: the glazed surface was removed with a diamond bur; and group D: the surface was etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid. Precoated Victory metal brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded to the facial surface of half (n = 10) of the polycarbonate crowns in each group, and precoated Clarity ceramic brackets (3M Unitek) were bonded to the facial surface of the other half (n = 10). Each was debonded with a shear load in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.254 mm per minute, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to analyze the sites of bond failure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc t test with the Bonferroni adjustment, Student t test, and chi-square test with the Yates correction were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between group B (sandblasting) and all other ceramic and metal groups. In the metal groups, there was a slight difference between group C (diamond bur) and group A (control). According to the ARI, sandblasting was the only surface treatment to significantly affect the adhesion of metal and ceramic brackets to polycarbonate crowns. There was no statistically significant difference between the metal and ceramic brackets in group B (sandblasting). There was a statistically significant difference between metal and ceramic brackets in each group, with the exception of group C (diamond bur), which was just below statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns will most likely not withstand the forces of orthodontic biomechanics. However, sandblasting polycarbonate crowns consistently increased the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets. A diamond bur effectively roughens the surface of a polycarbonate crown but with no gain in bond strength. Likewise, etching the surface of polycarbonate crowns with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid is ineffective. Ceramic brackets bonded to sandblasted polycarbonate crowns produced the highest mean shear bond strength (2.87 MPa), although this value is far below bond strengths with natural tooth surfaces.

Factors affecting the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces

The aims of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to two different all-ceramic crowns, IPS Empress 2 and In-Ceram Alumina, to compare the SBS between hydrofluoric acid (HFA), phosphoric acid etched, and sandblasted, non-etched all-ceramic surfaces. Ninety-six all-ceramic crowns were fabricated resembling a maxillary left first premolar. The crowns were divided into eight groups: (1) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; (2) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched In-Ceram crowns; (3) ceramic brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; (4) ceramic brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched In-Ceram crowns; (5) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 37 per cent phosphoric acid-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; (6) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 37 per cent phosphoric acid-etched In-Ceram crowns; (7) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted, non-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; and (8) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted, non-etched In-Ceram crowns. Metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets were bonded using a conventional light polymerizing adhesive resin. An Instron universal testing machine was used to determine the SBS at a crosshead speed of 0.1 mm/minute. Comparison between groups was performed using a univariate general linear model and chi-squared tests. The highest mean SBS was found in group 3 (120.15 +/- 45.05 N) and the lowest in group 8 (57.86 +/- 26.20 N). Of all the variables studied, surface treatment was the only factor that significantly affected SBS (P < 0.001). Acid etch application to sandblasted surfaces significantly increased the SBS in groups 1, 2, 5, and 6. The SBS of metal brackets debonded from groups 1, 3, and 5 were not significantly different from those of groups 2, 4, and 6. All debonded metal brackets revealed a similar pattern of bond failure at the adhesive-restorative interface. However, ceramic brackets had a significantly different adhesive failure pattern with dominant failure at the adhesive-bracket interface. Ceramic fractures after bracket removal were found more often in groups 1-4. No significant difference in ceramic fracture was observed between the IPS Empress 2 and In-Ceram groups.

Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs to feldspathic porcelains

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that the there is no difference between the shear bond strengths of different base designs of ceramic brackets bonded to glazed feldspathic porcelains.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty glazed feldspathic porcelain specimens (15 mm in diameter and 1.5 mm in thickness) were prepared and divided into 4 groups (n = 10). Ten pieces of each group of different ceramic bracket base designs (beads, large round pits, and irregular base) and one group of stainless steel brackets (served as a control) were bonded to glazed feldspathic porcelains under a 200 gram load. Then all samples were subjected to shear bond strength evaluation with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.2 mm/min. Data were analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test at a .05 significance level. The mode of failure after debonding was examined under a stereoscope.

RESULTS

This study revealed that the beads base design had the greatest shear bond strength (24.7 +/- 1.9 MPa) and was significantly different from the large round pits base (21.3 +/- 2 MPa), irregular base (19.2 +/- 2.0 MPa), and metal mesh base (15.2 +/- 2.4 MPa). The beads base design had 100% porcelain-adhesive failure, the large round pits had 100% bracket-adhesive failure, and the irregular base design had 70% combination failure and 30% porcelain-adhesive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis is rejected. The various base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence bond strength to glazed feldspathic porcelain, but all should be clinically acceptable.

Porcelain Refinishing with Two Different Polishing Systems after Orthodontic Debonding

Objective: To compare the effects of two polishing systems on the surface roughness of three types of porcelain after orthodontic debonding.

Materials and Methods: A total of 90 porcelain discs were fabricated from feldspathic (n = 30), leucite-based (n = 30) or lithia disilicate–based (n = 30) ceramics. Ten samples in each group served as the control and received no surface treatment. The remaining 60 samples in three of the porcelain groups were bonded with lower incisor brackets and debonded using a testing machine in shear mode at a rate of 1 mm/minute crosshead speed. After debonding, the remaining adhesive resin was removed with a tungsten carbide bur. Then, two experimental subgroups (10 each) in each porcelain group were treated as follows: in the first subgroup, porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste were applied, whereas in the second, polishing was performed using a series of Sof-Lex discs. The average surface roughness (Ra) of the all samples was evaluated using SPM/AFM (surface probe microscope/atomic force microscope). Data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance for each porcelain material and polishing method.

Results: The polishing techniques affected surface roughness significantly. There were significant differences between the groups; higher Ra values were obtained with the use of porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste (P &lt; .001).

Conclusion: The application of Sof-Lex discs can produce smoother porcelain surfaces than porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste.

Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I, a laboratory and clinical study

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).

Orthodontic bonding to several ceramic surfaces: are there acceptable alternatives to conventional methods?

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of various surface conditioning methods on 3 types of ceramic materials (feldsphatic, leucite-based, and lithia disilicate-based) in orthodontic bonding.

METHODS

A total of 210 ceramic disk samples were fabricated and divided into 3 groups. In each group, 5 subgroups were prepared by sandblasting; sandblasting and hydrofluoric (HF) acid; sandblasting and silane; sandblasting, HF acid, and silane; and tribochemical silica coating and silane. Mandibular incisor brackets were bonded with light-cured adhesive. The samples were stored in water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C and then thermocycled. Shear bond tests were performed, and the failure types were classified with adhesive remnant index scores.

RESULTS

In all 3 ceramic groups, the lowest shear bond strength values were found in the sandblasted-only samples. For the feldspathic and lithia disilicate-based ceramic, the highest bond strength values were obtained with silica coating (15.2 and 13.2 MPa, respectively). For the leucite-based ceramic, HF without silane produced the highest bond strength value (14.7 MPa), but comparable values were obtained with silicatization also (13.4 MPa).

CONCLUSIONS

The silica-coating technique could replace the other conditioning techniques in bonding brackets to ceramic. However, debonding must be done carefully because of the risk of porcelain fracture.

Effect of Feldspathic Ceramic Surface Treatments on Bond Strength to Resin Cement

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of resin cement to feldspathic ceramic with various surface treatments.

BACKGROUND DATA

Application of adhesive techniques is well established in restorative dentistry, yet the influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of resin cement to ceramic materials prior to luting or repair procedures remains unclear.

METHODS

One hundred samples made of a feldspathic ceramic were divided into 10 groups (n = 10): (1) control (no treatment); (2) 10% hydrofluoric acid (HF); (3) 37% phosphoric acid (H(3)PO(4)); (4) 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride acid (APF); (5) diamond bur; (6) air abrasion with Al(2)O(3); (7) Al(2)O(3) + HF; (8) CoJet-Sand; (9) Er:YAG laser, and (10) Al(2)O(3) + Er:YAG laser. Afterwards, silane was applied and a resin cement cylinder was built. After 24 hours at 37 degrees C, the prepared specimens were submitted to a shear bond strength test and stereoscopic evaluation to determine the type of failure after rupture.

RESULTS

Bond strength means were statistically different for the different surface treatments. The highest bond strengths were obtained with HF, CoJet-Sand, and Al(2)O(3). The groups treated with Al(2)O(3) + Er:YAG laser, diamond bur, and Al(2)O(3) + HF had moderate bond strengths. The lowest bond strengths were obtained with H(3)PO(4), APF, Er:YAG laser, and the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The HF, CoJet-Sand, and Al(2)O(3) techniques were the most effective surface treatments. The null surface treatment proposed with the Er:YAG laser showed low bond strength, and seems to be inadequate for clinical use with the parameters tested.

The effect of food simulants on porcelain-composite bonding

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects of food simulants on the bond strength of brackets to porcelain surfaces.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and eighty porcelain-fused to metal specimens were fabricated. Samples were divided into 3 groups including 60 specimens each. Different surface treatment methods were applied to each group and these were: sandblasting (SB), etching with orthophosphoric acid (OPA) and etching with hydrofluoric acid (HFA). After the surface treatments, the brackets were bonded to the center of each sample with a light-curing orthodontic composite adhesive. Then each group was divided into five test subgroups and one control subgroup each consisting of 10 specimens. The test groups were conditioned for 90 days at 37 degrees C as follows: water, 0.02N citric acid, heptane, 8% ethanol aqueous solution and 50% ethanol aqueous solution. The control specimens were stored at room temperature in air. Shear force was applied to the porcelain-bracket interface by using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until debonding occurred. The shear bond strength was calculated by dividing the maximum load by the cross-sectional area of the bracket to give the results in megapascals (MPa). The statistical evaluations were made by using analysis of variance. Whenever a significance was detected, Bonferroni tests were performed for post hoc analyses.

RESULTS

Fifty percent ethanol conditioned specimens for all surface treatment groups showed lower shear bond strength values. HFA group showed significantly higher shear bond strength values when compared with other groups (P < 0.05). For all porcelain surface treatment groups, control groups showed statistically significant higher shear bond strength values (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this in vitro study show that food simulants significantly decrease the bond strength between bracket and porcelain surface.

Porcelain surface-conditioning techniques and the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of various porcelain surface-conditioning techniques, used either alone or in combination, on the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets cured with a light emitting diode (LED). Thirty glazed porcelain facets were randomly divided into three groups of 10. In group I, the porcelain surfaces were etched with 9.6 per cent hydrofluoric acid (HFA) for 2 minutes before silane application, in group II, the porcelain surfaces were sandblasted with aluminium oxide particles, etched with 9.6 per cent HFA for 2 minutes, and silane applied, and in group III, the porcelain surfaces were sandblasted with aluminium oxide particles before silane application. Spirit ceramic brackets were bonded with a light-cured composite resin (Light Bond) and a LED. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and thermocycled. Bond strength was determined in shear mode at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute until fracture occurred. Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference between groups (P < 0.001). The lowest SBS was found in group III (5.46 +/- 1.34, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between group I (11.38 +/- 1.65) and group II (10.45 +/- 1.15; P > 0.05). Surface treatment with HFA and a silane coupling agent produced the highest bond strength. Sandblasting before HFA and silane application did not significantly increase bond strength. Silane application to sandblasted porcelain provided poor results in vitro and clinical trials are needed to determine its reliability for bonding ceramic brackets to ceramic crowns.

Effects of surface conditioning on bond strength of metal brackets to all-ceramic surfaces

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of bonding brackets to ceramic restorations. Sixty feldspathic and 60 lithium disilicate ceramic specimens were randomly divided into six groups. Shear bond strength (SBS) and bond failure types were examined with six surface-conditioning methods: silane application to glazed surface, air particle abrasion (APA) with 25- and 50-microm aluminium trioxide (Al(2)O(3)), etching with 9.6 per cent hydrofluoric acid (HFA), and roughening with 40- and 63-microm diamond burs. Silane was applied to all roughened surfaces. Metal brackets were bonded with light cure composite, then stored in distilled water for 1 week and thermocycled (x500 at 5-55 degrees C for 30 seconds). The ceramic surfaces were examined with a stereomicroscope at a magnification of x10 to determine the amount of composite resin remaining using the adhesive remnant index. The lowest SBS values were obtained with HFA for feldspathic (5.39 MPa) and lithium disilicate (11.11 MPa) ceramics; these values were significantly different from those of the other groups. The highest SBS values were found with 63-microm diamond burs for feldspathic (26.38 MPa) and lithium disilicate (28.20 MPa) ceramics, and were not significantly different from 40-microm diamond burs for feldspathic and lithium disilicate ceramics (26.04 and 24.26 MPa, respectively). Roughening with 25- and 50-microm Al(2)O(3) particles showed modest SBS for lithium disilicate (22.60 and 26.15 MPa, respectively) and for feldspathic ceramics (17.90 and 14.66 MPa, respectively). Adhesive failures between the ceramic and composite resin were noted in all groups. Damage to the porcelain surfaces was not observed. The SBS values were above the optimal range, except for feldspathic ceramic treated with HFA and silane. With all surface-conditioning methods, lithium disilicate ceramic displayed higher SBS than feldspathic ceramic.

Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding

INTRODUCTION

The purposes of this study were to investigate the effect of laser irradiation on the adhesion of brackets bonded to feldspathic porcelain and to compare it with brackets bonded with conventional techniques.

METHODS

One hundred porcelain-fused-to-metal specimens were divided into 10 groups of 10. The treatment groups were sandblasted (SB), sandblasted with silane (SB+S), orthophosphoric acid (OFA), orthophosphoric acid with silane (OFA+S), hydrofluoric acid (HFA), hydrofluoric acid with silane (HFA+S), laser etched (L), laser etched with silane (L+S), glazed (Control 1/C1), and deglazed (Control 2/C2). Five other specimens were irradiated by 2-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-watt superpulse carbon dioxide (CO2) laser for 20 seconds and examined by scanning electron microscopy. Metal brackets were bonded with a self-cure composite material and the specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and then thermocycled in water baths between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C 500 times. Bond strength was determined in megapascals (MPa) by shear test at 1 mm/minute crosshead speed. Bond failure modes were observed under stereomicroscope. For the statistical analysis, 1-way ANOVA and Tamhane post hoc test were used.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the groups at the .05 level. The HFA+S group yielded the highest mean strength (15.07 +/- 1.44). This was followed by SB+S (13.81 +/- 2.00), HFA (10.78 +/- 0.62), OFA+S (10.73 +/- 1.12), L+S (8.25 +/- 0.90), L (6.26 +/- 0.58), C2 (2.45 +/- 0.54), OFA (2.36 +/- 0.41), SB (2.04 +/- 0.41), and C1 (1.64 +/- 0.33). The bond failure modes of HFA and silane groups, except L+S, were cohesive in porcelain. Control groups and other test groups showed adhesive failure. Only irradiation by 2 watts for 20 seconds provided a porous surface texture without cracks.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-watt/20 second superpulse CO2 laser irradiation might be an alternative conditioning method for pretreating ceramic surfaces. Increased bond strength can be achieved by silanation after CO2 laser irradiation.

Bonding polycarbonate brackets to ceramic: effects of substrate treatment on bond strength

This study evaluated the effects of 5 different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of polycarbonate brackets bonded to ceramic surfaces with resin based cement. Six disc-shaped ceramic specimens (feldspathic porcelain) with glazed surfaces were used for each group. The specimens were randomly assigned to 1 of the following treatment conditions of the ceramic surface: (1) orthophosphoric acid + primer + bonding agent, (2) hydrofluoric acid gel + primer + bonding agent, (3) tribochemical silica coating (silicon dioxide, 30microm) + silane, (4) airborne particle abrasion (aluminum trioxide, 30microm) + silane, and (5) airborne particle abrasion (aluminum trioxide, 30microm) + silane + bonding agent. Brackets were bonded to the conditioned ceramic specimens with a light-polymerized resin composite. All specimens were stored in water for 1 week at 37 degrees C and then thermocycled (1000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 30 seconds). The shear bond strength values were measured on a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Brackets treated with silica coating with silanization had significantly greater bond strength values (13.6 MPa, P =.01) than brackets treated with orthophosphoric acid (8.5 MPa). There was no significant difference (P =.97) between the bond strengths obtained after airborne abrasion with aluminium trioxide particles followed by silanization (12 MPa) and hydrofluoric acid application (11.2 MPa) (ANOVA and Tukey test). Although brackets conditioned with orthophosphoric acid exhibited only adhesive failures of the luting cement from the ceramic surface, other conditioning methods showed mixed types of failures. Airborne particle abrasion with aluminium trioxide or silica coating followed by silanization gave the most favorable bond strengths. The types of failures observed after debonding indicated that the critical parameter was the strength of the adhesive joint of the luting cement to both the bracket and the ceramic.

Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces

The aim of this study was to compare various surface treatment methods to define the procedure that produces adequate bond strength between ceramic brackets and porcelain. The specimens used in this study, 60 porcelain tabs, were produced by duplication of the labial surface of a maxillary first premolar. The 6 different preparation procedures tested were: (1) sandblasting with 50 microm aluminum oxide in a sandblasting device, (2) application of silane to the porcelain and the bracket base, (3) sandblasting followed by application of silane, (4) acid etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, (5) acid etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid followed by application of silane, and (6) sandblasting followed by application of 4-Meta adhesive. The ceramic brackets were bonded with no-mix orthodontic bonding material. A bonding force testing machine was used to determine tensile bond strengths at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm per second. The results of the study showed that porcelain surface preparation with acid etching followed by silane application resulted in a statistically significant higher tensile bond strength (P < .05). Sandblasting the porcelain surface before silane treatment provided similar bond strengths, but sandblasting or acid etching alone were less effective. Silane application was recommended to bond a ceramic bracket to the porcelain surface to achieve bond strengths that are clinically acceptable.

The effect of different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets

With the increasing demand for adult orthodontics, a growing need arises to bond attachments to porcelain surfaces. Optimal adhesion to a porcelain surface should allow orthodontic treatment without bond failure but not jeopardize porcelain integrity after debonding. In this study, 90 glazed porcelain facets were divided into three groups according to different conditioning techniques: (1) roughening with a coarse diamond; (2) hydrofluoric acid 8%; (3) microetching with 60 micron aluminum oxide particles. Each group was divided into three groups and stainless steel brackets were then bonded to the conditioned porcelain with three different dental adhesives. The adhesives used were: (1) silane+Right-On; (2) silane+Concise; (3) High-Q-Bond without silane. Four additional facets (three of which conditioned as above and one intact) were analyzed macroscopically and by scanning electron microscopy. Shear bond strength was measured with an Instron universal testing machine and a macroscopic examination of the debonded porcelain surfaces was performed. Results showed that shear bond strength was highly influenced by both conditioning technique and the adhesive. Shear bond strength of the High-Q-Bond groups was significantly lower than both the silane+Right-On and the silane+Concise groups; nevertheless the shear bond strength achieved by High-Q-Bond was enough to sustain full orthodontic treatment duration (except for the group conditioned by roughening with a coarse diamond). Scanning electronic microscopy analysis revealed that diamond roughening and microetching produced only a surface-peeling pattern, whereas hydrofluoric acid conditioning produced an extensive in-depth penetrating pattern. Hydrofluoric acid preparation produced greater shear bond strength than both diamond roughening and microetching. After debonding by means of a shearing force, the percentage of damaged porcelain surfaces in the silane+Concise groups was significantly higher than the silane+Right-On and High-Q-Bond groups.

Orthodontic adhesives and bond strength testing

A bracket bond failure is a frustrating occurrence in orthodontic practice. Because the location of the bond failure may indicate the probable cause, it is important to understand the significance of "bond strength" in a clinical application. Bonding in orthodontics can be studied using controlled clinical models or in vitro using simulated clinical models or more fundamental, isolated substrate models, in which bonding of an adhesive to tooth structure or a bracket is studied independently. With numerous adhesives and orthodontic band and bracket materials available as well as other orthodontic substrates besides enamel, such as esthetic ceramic restorations, in vitro models play an important role in characterizing the bonding potential of new systems. This article reviews bonding of orthodontic brackets and bands using various orthodontic adhesives to dental substrates from the perspective of bond strength and its measurement.

In-vitro study of the adhesive strengths of brackets on metals, ceramic and composite. Part 2: Bonding to porcelain and composite resin

In addition to part 1 of the study, the present paper investigated more than 25 resin/conditioner combinations with respect to their bond strengths to porcelain and composite resin. For that purpose stainless steel lingual buttons were bonded with the various adhesives and their shear bond strengths and types of bond failure were determined after 24 hours. All specimens were air-abraded with 50 microns Al2O3 for 2 or 4 seconds by means of a Microetcher before bonding. Results show that, on the porcelain, and composite under investigation, several materials yield bond strengths which are similar to or higher than what is achieved with the conventional acid etch technique on enamel. Maximum adhesive strength is not always desirable, however, for bonding brackets. The type of bond failure and the risk of irreversible damage to the bonded material have also to be taken into consideration.