-

Abstract

Previous studies showed that the bonding strength of brackets to porcelain restorations and the failure model depend on many variables including bracket base design. The aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of different bracket base designs on porcelain surfaces and to evaluate the sites of adhesive fracture with the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Sixty feldspathic porcelain discs were randomly divided into three different groups each of twenty. Maxillary right incisor metal brackets with three different base designs (Victory series, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California; Dyna-Lock, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California and Mini Topic, Dentaurum, Inspringen, Germany) were bonded on the deglazed and conditioned porcelain surfaces in group 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Brackets were debonded and SBS was calculated in Mega Pascal (MPa). ARI scores were recorded after debonding. SBS forces calculated for group 1, 2 and 3 were 20,57 (± 7,18), 16,84 (± 6,20), 18,55 (± 5,46) MPa respectively. ANOVA and Multiple Comparison test revealed no significant difference in ARI scores between groups. Porcelain fractures after debonding were observed in groups 1 and 3. All brackets tested provided acceptable SBS. However, only Dyna-Lock brackets did not cause any porcelain fractures at debonding. This finding could be an acceptable reason to use this kind of brackets during orthodontic treatment of patient having porcelain restorations.

Keywords

• Orthodontics, bracket base, dental porcelain, shear bond strength.

A Comparative Study of Shear Bond Strength of Three Different Bracket Bases Bonded to Porcelain Surfaces

Abstract

Previous studies showed that the bonding strength of brackets
to porcelain restorations and the failure model depend on many
variables including bracket base design. The aim of this in-vitro
study was to investigate Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of different
bracket base designs on porcelain surfaces and to evaluate the
sites of adhesive fracture with the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI).
Sixty feldspathic porcelain discs were randomly divided into three
different groups each of twenty. Maxillary right incisor metal
brackets with three different base designs (Victory series, 3M
Unitek, Monrovia, California; Dyna-Lock, 3M Unitek, Monrovia,
California and Mini Topic, Dentaurum, Inspringen, Germany)
were bonded on the deglazed and conditioned porcelain surfaces
in group 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Brackets were debonded and SBS
was calculated in Mega Pascal (MPa). ARI scores were recorded after
debonding. SBS forces calculated for group 1, 2 and 3 were 20,57 (±
7,18), 16,84 (± 6,20), 18,55 (± 5,46) MPa respectively. ANOVA and
Multiple Comparison test revealed no significant difference in ARI
scores between groups. Porcelain fractures after debonding were
observed in groups 1 and 3. All brackets tested provided acceptable
SBS. However, only Dyna-Lock brackets did not cause any porcelain
fractures at debonding. This finding could be an acceptable reason
to use this kind of brackets during orthodontic treatment of patient
having porcelain restorations.

Keywords

• Orthodontics;bracket base;dental porcelain;shear bond strength;

References

1. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly A, Dietz V. A universal direct system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1972;62:236-44.
2. Hocevar RA. Direct bonding update. J Clin Orthod 1979;13:172-5.
3. Knox J, Hubsch P, Jones ML, Middleton J. The influence of bracket base design on the strength of the bracket-cement interface. Br J Orthod 2000;27:249-54.
4. Matasa CG. Direct bonding metallic brackets: where are they heading? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:552-60.
5. Siomka LV, Powers JM. In vitro bond strength of treated direct bonding metal bases. Am J Orthod 1985;88:133-6.
6. Sernetz F, Binder F. Improvement of bond strength of orthodontic titanium brackets and tubes by laser structuring. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Joining Ceramics, Glass and Metal; 1997 May 12-14; Jena, Germany. DVS Berichte Band 184, 1997, 82-5.
7. Al-Hity R, Gustin MP, Bridel N, Morgon L, Grosgogeat B. In vitro orthodontic bracket bonding to porcelain. Eur J Orthod 2011;29:17
8. Kao EC, Boltz KC, Johnson WM. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain veneer laminates. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:458-68.

9. Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:10-21.
10. Gills I, Redlich M. The effect off different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114:387-92.
11. Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:420-30.
12. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akca K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119:617-20.
13. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 1995;74:1591-6.
14. Babosa VLT, Almeid MA, Chevitarrese O, Keith O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:159-64.
15. Lu R, Harcourt JK, Tyas MJ, Alexander B. An investigation of the composite resin/porcelain interface. Australian Dent J 1992;37:12-19.
16. Major PW, Koehler JR, Manning KE. 24-hour shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain using various adhesion promoters. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:322-29.
17. Wang WN, Li CH, Chou TH, Wang DDH, Lin LH, Lin CT. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Ortod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:65-70.
18. Pannes DD, Bailey DK, Thompson JY, Pietz DM. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain: a comparison of bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:66-9.
19. Van Noort R. Introduction to dental materials. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Mosby;2002.
20. Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J of Orthod 1984;85:333-40.
21. Sinmazisik G, Ovecoglu ML. Physical properties and microstructural characterization of dental porcelains mixed with distilled water and modeling liquid. Dent Materials 2006;22:735-45.
22. Cochran D, O’Keefe KL, Turner DT, Powers JM. Bond strength of orthodontic composite cement to treated porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:297-300.
23. Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 1999;26:285-90.
24. Kao EC, Johnston WM. Fracture incidence on debonding of orthodontic brackets from porcelain veneer laminates. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:631-7.
25. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:355-9.
26. Cozza P, Martucci L, Toffol LD, Penco SI. Shear bond strength of metal brackets to enamel. Angle Ortod 2006;76(5):851-6.
27. Diaz-Arnold AM, Wistrom DW, Aquilino SA, Swift EJ. Bond strength of porcelain repair adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1993;6:291-4.
28. Klausner LH, Cartwright CB, Charbeneau GT. Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:157-62.
29. Sinmazisik G, Sen D, Tuncelli B, Poyrazoglu E, Ozkal B, Ovecoglu ML. A comparative study of the effect of different polishing systems on ceramic dental surfaces. Key Engineering Materials 2004;Vols.264268:1997-2000.
30. Hioki M, Shin-Ya A, Nakahara R, Vallittu PK, Nakasone Y, Shin-Ya A. Shear bond strength and FGEM of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement—effects of tooth enamel shape and orthodontic bracket base configuration. Dent Materials 2007;Sep;26(5):700-7.
31. Merone G, Valletta R, De Santis R, Ambrosio L, Martina R. A novel bracket base design: biochemical stability. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:219-23.
32. Cucu M, Driessen CH, Ferreira PD. The influence of orthodontic bracket base diameter and mesh size on bond strength. SADJ 2002;57:16-20.
33. Sharma-Sayal SK, Rossouw PE, Kulkami GV, Titley KC. The influence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:74-82.
34. Winchester L, Orth M. Direct orthodontic bonding to porcelain: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991;18:299-308.
35. Euastaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:421-5.
36. Calamia JR. Etched porcelain facial veneers: a new treatment modality based on scientific and clinical evidence. New York Journal of Dentistry 1983;53:255-9.
37. Al Edris A, Al Jabr A, Cooley RL, Barghi N. SEM evaluation of etch patterns by three etchants on three porcelains. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:734-9.
38. Hayakawa T, Horie K, Aida M, Kanaya H, Kobayashi T, Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Materials 1992;8:238-40.
39. Shahverdi S, Canay S, Sahin E, Bilge A. Effects of different surface treatment methods on the bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Oral Rehab 1998;25:699-705.
40. Trakyali G, Malkondu O, Kazazoglu E, Arun T. Effects of different silane and acid concentrations on bond strength of brackets to porcelain. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:402-6.