Adhesion of Orthodontic Braces to Different Restorative Materials: Influence of Surface Conditioning Methods

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the shear bond strength of orthodontic metal braces to restorative materials with various constituents and manufacturing methods after dif- ferent surface conditioning methods. Methods: The samples were prepared from Vita Mark II, Shofu Block HC, Brilliant Crios computer- aided design/computer-aided manufacturing blocks, and Gradia Direct composite restorative material, and they were exposed to 5000 thermal cycles. Fabricated samples were divided into 6 groups based on the surface conditioning method (n = 12): control (no conditioning); etching with hydrofluoric acid; sandblasting with aluminum oxide; tribochemical silica coating with CoJet sand; bur abrasion; Monobond Etch and Prime application. The surface characteristics of the restorative materials were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope. The universal adhesive was applied to the specimens, and orthodontic braces were bonded with a light-cure adhesive paste. After thermal cycling, shear bond strength values were measured, and the adhesive remnant index was recorded. Two-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Both the surface conditioning method and the material type significantly affected shear bond strength values. In addition, the interaction between these variables was significant (P < .001). Control groups of all restorative materials had significantly the lowest shear bond strength values. Conclusion: Surface conditioning methods significantly enhanced the shear bond strength. Control groups of Vita Mark II and Shofu Block HC demonstrated shear bond strength values lower than the acceptable limit, but the rest of the groups showed adequate adhesion (above 6 MPa). Consequently, clinicians can prefer Monobond Etch and Prime along with a universal adhesive as a safer surface conditioning method. Keywords: Bond strength, CAD/CAM, orthodontic braces, restorative materials, surface conditioning ÖZ Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortodontik metal braketlerin çeşitli bileşenlere ve üretim süreçlerine sahip restoratif materyallere makaslama bağlanma direncini (MBD) farklı yüzey işlemleri sonrası analiz etmektir. Yöntemler: Örnekler Vita Mark II, Shofu Block HC, Brilliant Crios CAD/CAM blokları ve Gradia Direct kompozit restoratif materyalinden hazırlanmıştır ve 5000 termal siklusa maruz bırakılmış- tır. Hazırlanan örnekler, yüzey işleme yöntemine göre altı gruba ayrılmıştır (n = 12): kontrol (işlem yok); hidroflorik asit uygulaması; alüminyum oksit ile kumlama; CoJet kumu ile tribokimyasal silika kaplama; frez ile aşındırma; Monobond Etch and Prime (MEP) uygulaması. Restoratif materyal- lerin yüzey özellikleri taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile analiz edilmiştir. Örneklere üniversal ade- ziv uygulanmıştır ve ortodontik braketler ışıkla sertleşen adeziv pasta ile yapıştırılmıştır. Termal döngü sonrasında MBD değerleri ölçülmüştür ve artık adeziv indeksi kaydedilmiştir. İstatistiksel analiz için iki yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey testleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Hem yüzey işleme yöntemi hem de malzeme türü MBD değerlerini anlamlı derecede etkilemiştir. Ayrıca, bu değişkenler arasındaki etkileşim de anlamlı bulunmuştur (P < .001). Tüm restoratif materyallerin kontrol gruplarının anlamlı derecede en düşük MBD değerlerine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: Yüzey işleme yöntemleri MBD'yi anlamlı derecede arttırmıştır. Vita Mark II ve Shofu Block HC'nin kontrol gruplarının MBD değerlerinin kabul edilebilir sınırın altında olduğu tespit edilmiştir, fakat grupların geri kalanı yeterli adezyon (6 MPa'ın üzerinde) göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, klinisyenler daha güvenli bir yüzey işleme yöntemi olan üniversal adeziv ile birlikte MEP kullanınımını tercih edebilirler. Anahtar Kelimeler: bağlanma dayanımı, CAD/CAM, ortodontik braketler, restoratif materyaller, yüzey işlemi

Keywords

• Bond strength
• CAD/CAM
• orthodontic braces
• restorative materials

References

1. 1. Mcmorrow SM, Millett DT. Adult orthodontics in the Republic of Ire- land : specialist orthodontists’ opinions. J Orthod. 2017;44(4):277- 286. [CrossRef]
2. 2. Sandhya A, Harish B, Senthil Murugan P. Proportion of orthodontic patients seeking adult orthodontic treatment. Int J Dent Oral Sci. 2021;8(7):3074-3078.
3. 3. Yüzbaşıoğlu E, Sayar-Torun G, Özcan M. Adhesion of orthodontic brackets to indirect laboratory-processed resin composite as a func- tion of surface conditioning methods and artificial aging. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2016;30(23):2565-2572. [CrossRef]
4. 4. Suganna M, Kausher H, Tarek Ahmed S, et al. Contemporary evidence of CAD-CAM in dentistry: A systematic review. Cureus. 2022;14(11): e31687. [CrossRef]
5. 5. Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-produced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(9 suppl):14S-21S. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ. Resin-composite Blocks for Dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res. 2014;93(12):1232-1234. [CrossRef]
7. 7. Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/ CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):587-593. [CrossRef] 8. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltr ated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater. 2013;29(4):419-426. [CrossRef]
8. 9. Stasinopoulos D, Papageorgiou SN, Kirsch F, Daratsianos N, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration : A retrospective cohort study. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(3):338-347. [CrossRef]

9. 10. Bayel Akgül M, Uslu F. Evaluation of the effects of ultrasonic device and sandblasting techniques on shear bond strength before rebonded brackets with different base designs. Curr Res Dent Sci. 2022;32(4):253-260. [CrossRef]
10. 11. Alzainal AH, Majud AS, Al-Ani AM, Mageet AO. Orthodontic bonding: review of the literature. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:8874909. [CrossRef]
11. 12. Tayebi A, Fallahzadeh F, Morsaghian M. Shear bond strength of ortho- dontic metal brackets to aged composite using three primers. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(6):e749-e755. [CrossRef]
12. 13. Francisco I, Travassos R, Nunes C, et al. What is the most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bioengineering (Basel). 2022;9(1):14. [CrossRef]
13. 14. Golshah A, Mohamadi N, Rahimi F, Pouyanfar H, Tabaii ES, Imani MM. Shear bond strength of metal brackets to porcelain using a universal adhesive. Med Arch. 2018;72(6):425-429. [CrossRef]
14. 15. Peumans M, Valjakova EB, De Munck J, Mishevska CB, Van Meer- beek B. Bonding effectiveness of luting composites to different CAD/ CAM materials. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(4):289-302. [CrossRef]
15. 16. 3M™ CoJet Sand; 68411; 3M Company: 3M Center, St. Paul, MN, USA. Available at: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver? mwsId=SSSSSuUn_zu8l00x482v58mZMv70k17zHvu9lxtD7SSS SSS. Access04/23/20. Accessed April 23, 2020.
16. 17. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting , grinding , polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all- ceramic dental materials. J Dent. 2004;32(2):91-99. [CrossRef]
17. 18. Colombo LDA, Murillo-Gómez F, De Goes MF. Bond strength of CAD/ CAM restorative materials treated with different surface etching protocols. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(4):307-317. [CrossRef]
18. 19. Recen D, Yıldırım B, Othman E, Çömlekoğlu E, Aras I. Bond strength of metal brackets to feldspathic ceramic treated with different sur- face conditioning methods: an in vitro study. Eur Oral Res. 2021;55(1):1-7. [CrossRef]
19. 20. Franz A, Raabe M, Lilaj B, et al. Effect of two different primers on the shear bond strength of metallic brackets to zirconia ceramic. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):51. [CrossRef]
20. 21. González-Serrano C, Phark JH, Fuentes MV, et al. Effect of a single- component ceramic conditioner on shear bond strength of pre- coated brackets to different CAD/CAM materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(4):1953-1965. [CrossRef]
21. 22. de Almeida RM, Hass V, Sasaki DY, Berger SB, Fernandes TM, Tonetto MR. The impact of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets applied to different CAD/CAM composites. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13(6):e608-e613. [CrossRef]
22. 23. Alavi S, Shirani F, Zarei Z, Raji SAH. Effect of different surface treat- ment with panaviaV5 on shear bond strength of metal brackets to silver amalgam. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2021;18(9):9
23. 24. Asiry MA, AlShahrani I, Alaqeel SM, Durgesh BH, Ramakrishnaiah R. Effect of two-step and one-step surface conditioning of glass ceramic on adhesion strength of orthodontic bracket and effect of thermo-cycling on adhesion strength. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;84:22-27. [CrossRef]
24. 25. Kim JW, Covel NS, Guess PC, Rekow ED, Zhang Y. Concerns of hydro- thermal degradation in CAD/CAM Zirconia. J Dent Res. 2010;89(1):91-95. [CrossRef]
25. 26. Wiegand A, Stucki L, Hoffmann R, Attin T, Stawarczyk B. Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(8):2007-2013. [CrossRef]
26. 27. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brack- ets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):621-624. [CrossRef] 28. Turunç-Oğuzman R, Şişmanoğlu S. Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength between CAD/CAM bioceramic and resin blocks and orthodontic metal brackets bonded to each other. J Aust Ceram Soc. 2023;59(1):187-196. [CrossRef]
27. 29. Şişmanoğlu S, Turunç-Oğuzman R. Microshear bond strength of contemporary self-adhesive resin cements to CAD/CAM restorative materials: effect of surface treatment and aging. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2020;34(22):2484-2498. [CrossRef]
28. 30. Matinlinna JP, Lung CYK, Tsoi JKH. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: a review. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):13-28. [CrossRef]
29. 31. Tahmasbi S, Badiee M, Modarresi M. Shear bond strength of ortho- dontic brackets to composite restorations using universal adhesive. J Dent (Shiraz). 2019;20(2):75-82. [CrossRef]
30. 32. Pouyanfar H, Golshah A, Shekarbeigi M. Shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to composite using single bond and universal adhesives. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2020;8(D):1-6. [CrossRef]
31. 33. Essayagh Tourot JE, Dantagnan CA, Francois P, Dursun E, Attal JP. In vitro study evaluating the shear bond strength of metal brackets to lithium disilicate ceramic support using a universal adhesive. Orthod Fr. 2022;93(2):101-109. [CrossRef]
32. 34. Gilbert S, Keul C, Roos M, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B. Bonding between CAD/CAM resin and resin composite cements dependent on bond- ing agents: three different in vitro test methods. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(2):227-236. [CrossRef]
33. 35. El-Damanhoury HM, Gaintantzopoulou MD. Self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching: etching efficacy and bonding performance. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(1):75-83.[CrossRef]
34. 36. Zarif Najafi H, Mousavi M, Nouri N, Torkan S. Evaluation of the effect of different surface conditioning methods on shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to aged composite restorations. Int Orthod. 2019;17(1):80-88. [CrossRef]
35. 37. Nergiz I, Schmage P, Herrmann W, Özcan M. Effect of alloy type and surface conditioning on roughness and bond strength of metal brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(1):42-50. [CrossRef]
36. 38. Özcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003;19(8):725-731. [CrossRef]
37. 39. Bayram M, Yeşilyurt C, Kuşgöz A, Ülker M, Nur M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to aged resin composite sur- faces: effect of surface conditioning. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(2):174- 179. [CrossRef]
38. 40. Özarslan MM, Üstün Ö, Buyukkaplan US, Barutcigil Ç, Türker N, Barutcigil K. Assessment the bond strength of ceramic brackets to CAD/CAM nanoceramic composite and interpenetrating network composite after different surface treatments. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:1871598. [CrossRef]
39. 41. Shintani H, Isozaki A, Kuwahara Y, Ikuta S, Kani M, Kani T. The effect of ammonium fluoride solution at various concentrations on enamel. Gifu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 1990;17(1):170-176
40. 42. Lyann SK, Takagaki T, Nikaido T, et al. Efficacy of various surface treat- ments on the bonding performance of saliva-contaminated lithium- disilicate ceramics. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):51-58. [CrossRef]