Bond strength of metal brackets to feldspathic ceramic treated with different surface conditioning methods: an in vitro study

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 55 Sayı: 1, 1 - 7, 30.01.2021

Duygu Recen Bengisu Yildirim Eman Othman Erhan Comlekoglu Isil Aras

Öz

Background: Feldspathic ceramic (FC) surface treatment methods require many steps for bracket bonding. Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP) is more convenient to use intra-orally when compared to hydrofluoric (HF) acid etching and sandblasting.
Purpose: To compare MEP which is originally manufactured for increasing bond strength between organic resins and ceramic with conventional surface treatment methods in preparation of leucite-reinforced FC surfaces regarding shear bond strength (SBS) of stainless steel brackets and the mode of bond failure.
Materials and Methods: Forty specimens that were fabricated from FC material and glazed were randomly assigned to four surface conditioning methods: (1) CoJet Sand; (2) MEP; (3) HF acid etching followed by silane coupling agent; (4) Diamond bur followed by silane coupling agent. The SBS was determined using universal testing machine. Bond failure sites were classified according to Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI).
Results: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was found in SBS between the groups while significant intergroup differences were detected concerning ARI scores (p<0.001). Group 1 had ARI score 1 and 2 indicating mode of failure at the adhesive interface with greater percentage of the adhesive left on bracket base. The other groups had higher frequency of ARI score 3 and 2. The quantity of the ARI retained on the ceramic surface was highest in Group 3, followed by Group 4 and Group 2.
Conclusion: MEP can be a suitable alternative for bonding metal brackets to FC surface.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Considering high SBS values, safer ARI scores and not requiring additional efforts such as isolation of working area, MEP has been found promising for bonding metal brackets to FC surface.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Surface treatment methods, Adhesion, Bond performance, Feldspathic ceramic

Destekleyen Kurum

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

Kaynakça

• 1. American Association of Orthodontists. A study to smile about: new study shows record number of adults are seeking orthodontic treatment, 2016.
• 2. Hosseini MH, Sobouti F, Etemadi A, Chiniforush N, Shariati M. Shear bond strength of metal brackets to feldspathic porcelain treated by Nd:YAG laser and hydrofl uoric acid. Lasers in Medical Science 2015;30:837-41.
• 3. Spear F, Holloway J. Which all-ceramic system is optimal for anterior esthetics? Journal of the American Dental Association 2008;139:19-24.
• 4. Denry I, Holloway JA. Ceramics for Dental Applications: A Review. Materials 2010;3:351-368.
• 5. Stasinopoulos D, Papageorgiou SN, Kirsch F, Daratsianos N, Jager A, Bourauel C. Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: A retrospective cohort study. The Angle Orthodontist 2018;88:338-347.
• 6. Scribante A, Contreras-Bulnes R, Montasser MA, Vallittu PK. Orthodontics: Bracket Materials, Adhesives Systems, and Their Bond Strength. Biomed Research International 2016;2016:1-3.
• 7. Sarac YS, Kulunk T, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, Turk T. Effects of surface-conditioning methods on shear bond strength of brackets bonded to different all-ceramic materials. European Journal of Orthodontics 2011;33:667-672.
• 8. Alakus Sabuncuoglu F, Erturk E. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to porcelain surface: in vitro study. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry 2016;50:9-18.
• 9. Ozcan M, Allahbeickaraghi A, Dundar M. Possible hazardous effects of hydrofluoric acid and recommendations for treatment approach: a review. Clinical Oral Investigations 2012;16:15-23.
• 10. Schmalz G, Bindslev DA. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
• 11. Peterson IM, Pajares A, Lawn BR, Thompson VP, Rekow ED. Mechanical characterization of dental ceramics by hertzian contacts. Journal of Dental Research 1998;77:589-602.
• 12. Elsaka SE. Influence of surface treatments on bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic material. Odontology 2016;104:68- 76.
• 13. Zachrisson BU. Orthodontic bonding to artificial tooth surfaces: clinical versus laboratory findings. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2000;117:592-594.
• 14. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Comparison of shear bond strength of two self-etch primer/adhesive systems. The Angle Orthodontist 2006;76:123-126.
• 15. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. American Journal of Orthodontics 1984;85:333-340.
• 16. Cevik P, Eraslan O, Eser K, Tekeli S. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to surface-treated feldspathic porcelain after thermocycling. The International Journal of Artificial Organs 2018;41:160-167.
• 17. Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, Turk T. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic. The Angle Orthodontist 2007;7:723-728.
• 18. 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. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 2018;84:22-27.
• 19. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. Elsevier/Saunders: St. Louis, Mo, 2014.
• 20. Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. Journal of Dentistry 2004;32:91-99.
• 21. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1994;72.355-359.
• 22. Durgesh BH, Alhijji S, Hashem MI, Al Kheraif AA, Durgesh P, Elsharawy M, et al. Influence of tooth brushing on adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain. Bio-medical Materials and Engineering 2016;27:365-374.
• 23. Karan S, Buyukyilmaz T, Toroglu MS. Orthodontic bonding to several ceramic surfaces: are there acceptable alternatives to conventional methods? American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007;132:144 e7-14.
• 24. Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W, Ozcan M. Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2003;123:540-546.
• 25. Kolasinski K. Etching of silicon in fluoride solutions. Surface Science 2009;603:1904-1911.
• 26. Lyann SK, Takagaki T, Nikaido T, Wada T, Uo M, Ikeda M, et al. Efficacy of Various Surface Treatments on the Bonding Performance of Saliva-contaminated Lithium-Disilicate Ceramics. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2019;21:51-58.
• 27. El-Damanhoury HM, Gaintantzopoulou MD. Self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching: Etching efficacy and bonding performance. Journal of Prosthodontic Research 2018;62:75-83.
• 28. Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, Chan DC. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2003;89:479-488.
• 29. Politano G, Fabianelli A, Papacchini F, Cerutti A. The use of bonded partial ceramic restorations to recover heavily compromised teeth. The International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry 2016;11:314-336.
• 30. Ritter DE, Ritter AV, Bruggeman G, Locks A, Tulloch JF. Bond strengths and adhesive remnant index of self-etching adhesives used to bond brackets to instrumented and uninstrumented enamel. American Journal of Dentistry 2006;19:47-50.
• 31. Lawn BR. Fracture of brittle solids. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, New York, 1993.
• 32. Zhang ZC, Qian YF, Yang YM, Feng QP, Shen G. Bond strength of metal brackets bonded to a silica-based ceramic with light-cured adhesive : Influence of various surface treatment methods. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 2016;77:366-372.
• 33. Inokoshi M, Kameyama A, De Munck J, Minakuchi S, Van Meerbeek B. Durable bonding to mechanically and/or chemically pre-treated dental zirconia. Journal of Dentistry 2013;41:170-179.
• 34. Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Lange A, Baumert U, Proff P. Shear and tensile bond strength comparison of various contemporary orthodontic adhesive systems: an in-vitro study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2009;135:422 e1-6.
• 35. Li R, Ma SQ, Zang CC, Zhang WY, Liu ZH, Sun YC, et al. Enhanced bonding strength between lithium disilicate eramics and resin cement by multiple surface treatments after thermal cycling. PLoS ONE 2019;14:e0220466.
• 36. Colombo M, Gallo S, Padovan S, Chiesa M, Poggio C, Scribante A. Influence of Different Surface Pretreatments on Shear Bond Strength of an Adhesive Resin Cement to Various Zirconia Ceramics. Materials (Basel) 2020;13:E652.
• 37. Chauhan S, Mahajan N, Sethuraman R, Naveen YG. Evaluation of the effect of dentin surface treatment by air abrasion and Er:YAG laser on the retention of metal crowns luted with glass ionomer cement in teeth with reduced crown height: An in vitro study. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2019;19:141-8.