Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evaluation of shear bond strength of different treatments of ceramic bracket surfaces
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 2012
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bonding strength of the ceramic bracket and composite resin restoration interface, using four types of treatment on the base of the bracket. METHODOLOGY: 48 photoactivated composite resin discs were used (FiltekTM Z250) contained in specimens and divided into 4 groups of 12 specimens for each group according to the type of treatment performed on the base of the brackets. Once the brackets were bonded, the specimens were subjected to shear stress carried out in a universal testing machine (MTS: 810 Material Test System) calibrated with a fixed speed of 0.5 mm / minute. The values obtained were recorded and compared by means of appropriate statistical tests - analysis of variance and then Tukey's test. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The surfaces of ceramic brackets conditioned with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 1 minute, followed by aluminum oxide blasting, 50µ, after silane application and primer application, was considered the best method to prepare surfaces of ...
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2010
free metal restorations', are among the most recent types of ceramics. These include conventional powder and slurry, castable, machinable, pressable, and infiltrated ceramics (Rosenblum and Schulman, 1997). The IPS Empress system (Ivoclar-Vivadent, Şchaan, Liechtenstein) is supplied in a form of feldspathic ingots, which are made up of microleucite crystals that are produced by controlled crystallization in a glass containing nucleating agents. These ingots are heated and subsequently pressed in a mould using an alumina plunger to form an all-ceramic restoration. In-Ceram ceramics (Vita Zahnfabrik, H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Säckingen, Germany) are fabricated by an infiltrated molten glass matrix in a porous core composed of aluminium oxide or spinel. The glass-infiltrated core is
Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets after different pre-treatments in porcelain surface
DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals - DOAJ, 2015
Aim: To evaluate the bond strength of brackets bonded after different surface treatments on two dental ceramics. Methods: One hundred and twenty discs (5 mm thick and 7 mm diameter) of two ceramic types were made and randomly divided in 8 groups. Groups 1, 3, 5, and 7 used Eris ceramic and groups 2, 4, 6, and 8 used d.Sign ceramic. The ceramic surfaces were treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid (G1 and G2), 10% hydrofluoric acid + silane (G3 and G4), aluminum oxide blasting + 35% phosphoric acid + silane (G5 and G6), CoJet blasting + 35% phosphoric acid + silane (G7 and G8). Metallic brackets were cemented with Concise cement. Mechanical test was performed in a universal testing machine until failure. Results: The average values (MPa) obtained (G1-7.30; G2-6.12; G3-17.49; G4-19.54; G5-18.80; G6-21.93; G7-6.81 e G8-9.77) were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (p<0.05). The fracture patterns were analyzed in stereoscopic microscope (25´X) and representative samples of each group were analyzed in SEM. Conclusions: It was possible to conclude that use of silane after hydrofluoric acid increased the bond strength values.
Shear bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces using a universal bonding resin
2018
Background Assure Plus is a recently introduced universal adhesive with the ability to bond to various restorations. This study compared the shear bond strength of brackets bonded to two types of ceramics using conventional bonding agent and Assure Plus. Surface damage caused by debonding was also evaluated. Material and Methods In this in vitro study, 40 feldspathic and lithium disilicate ceramic discs were sandblasted, etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and divided into two groups. In group 1, silane was applied and air-dried followed by application of Transbond XT primer, which was light-cured. In group 2, Assure Plus was applied and air-dried. In both groups, maxillary central incisor brackets were bonded. After incubation in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and 2000 thermal cycles, bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and failure modes were determined. ANOVA and LSD tests were used to compare bond strength values...
Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 2011
The objective of this study was to compare the tensile bond strength of metal brackets bonding to glazed ceramic surfaces using three various surface treatments. Forty two glazed ceramic disks were assigned to three groups. In the first and second groups the specimens were etched with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HFA). Subsequently in first group, ceramic primer and adhesive were applied, but in second group a bonding agent alone was used. In third group, specimens were treated with 35% phosphoric acid followed by ceramic primer and adhesive application. Brackets were bonded with light cure composites. The specimens were stored in distilled water in the room temperature for 24 hours and thermocycled 500 times between 5°C and 55°C. The universal testing machine was used to test the tensile bond strength and the adhesive remenant index scores between three groups was evaluated. The data were subjected to one-way ANOVA, Tukey and Kruskal-Wallis tests respectively. The tensile bond strength ...
Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatment and Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets
International Journal of Dentistry, 2020
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 ...
Bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new ceramic bracket
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2005
The purposes of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength of a new collapsible monocrystalline bracket (Inspire, Ormco, Orange, Calif) and compare it with another collapsible ceramic bracket (Clarity, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and a metal bracket; to examine the modes of failure after shear bond strength testing; and to observe the tooth surface after debonding the ceramic brackets with pliers. Methods: One hundred extracted human premolars were selected for bonding. Three types of brackets and 2 orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek; and Enlight, Ormco) were used. After bonding, all samples were placed in a distilled water bath at 37°C for 24 hours. The shear bond strength of 60 samples was measured, and the remaining 40 samples with ceramic brackets were debonded with pliers. Results: No statistically significant differences in bond strengths among the different combinations of brackets and adhesives were found (P Ͼ .05). The mode of failure after debonding by either shear bond strength testing or with pliers was predominantly at the bracket/adhesive interface in all groups. Enamel and bracket fractures were noted in 2 and 5 of 20 samples for Inspire, and 1 and 0 of 20 samples for Clarity after debonding with pliers. Conclusions: Bond strength and mode of failure of Inspire were similar to those of Clarity, but the risk of bracket fracture after debonding for Inspire was greater. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:761-5)
Impact of dIfferent surface treatments on surface roughness and shear bond strength of metal ceramIc crowns to ceramIc brackets ABSTRACT statement of problem: Bonding orthodontic brackets on teeth restored with fixed restorations such as crowns and bridges are a challenge for the orthodontist and prosthodontist. purpose: To evaluate the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to the metal ceramic crowns with 3 different surface treatments. materials and methods: A total of forty metalceramic crowns were constructed for maxillary first premolar and assigned for 4 equal groups of 10 specimens each relative to the surface treatment of their facial surfaces either, aluminum oxide abrasion, hydrofluoric acid etching, Cojet system abrasion, and the last group left without preparation acting as a control group. Each of the 30 treated specimens was treated with silane coupling agent before bonding it to the ceramic bracket with no mix orthodontic adhesive. Debonding was performed with a shear force on a universal testing machine. The mode of bond failure was determined macroscopically, and the integrity of the porcelain crowns was evaluated microscopically at 10X magnification. To evaluate the surface roughness produced relative to the different types of the surface treatment, 40 rectangular metal ceramic specimens classified into 4 groups as in metal ceramic crowns groups and their surface roughness were measured. The results of the shear bond strength and the surface roughness values were recorded and statistically analyzed. results: The results showed that, the method of porcelain conditioning technique affects the shear bond strength. Conditioning with Cojet system significantly increased the value of shear bond strength than hydrofluoric acid which in turn had significantly increased shear strength than aluminum oxide abrasion. Also surface roughness of the specimens treated chemico-mechanical was significantly higher than that treated chemically and mechanically conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following conclusions could be drawn: 1. All treated methods produced significant shear bond strength of the ceramic brackets to the tested ceramic surfaces than the control 2. The highest shear bond strength value was for Cojet system 3. At debonding, the adhesive resin mostly remained in the ceramic surface giving cohesive failure in all tested groups except the control one 4. The highest value of surface roughness was for cojet system, while the lowest value was for aluminum oxide abrasion system.