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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Karan et al reported similar SBS values after pretreatment of different silicate ceramics with either CoJet or 50-μm aluminia oxide sandblasting followed by HF and thermo cycling [48]. In a further investigation pretreatment of LEU with CoJet resulted in significant higher SBS values after thermal cycling compared to HF [49], and slightly higher after 24 h [44] which is in accordance with the present results, although the difference we found were not significant. All of the above described studies used metal brackets and not ceramic, as in the present investigation.…”

“…Similar to our findings González-Serrano et al described lower SBS values after conditioning of LiSi with MEP in comparison to HF, but the differences were not significant after 24 h. They also found a very little reduction of SBS after HF treatment and thermal cycling, but a significant reduction after MEP pretreatment [43]. In contrast to our finding, Duygu et al reported slightly higher SBS values after pretreatment of LEU with MEP in comparison to HF [44]. Many studies comparing different pretreatment methods used airborne particle abrasion with alumina powder as an alternative for HF [45,46].…”

“…Thermal loading may lead to mechanical stress at the bonding area, causing volumetric changes. Nevertheless, thermal aging is usually still not used in numerous orthodontic bond strength tests [44,45,56,57]. Ninety days of wet storage resulted in decreased SBS values between the bracket and LiSi after pretreatment with CoJet.…”

Shear Bond Strength between Orthodontic Brackets and Monolithic 4Y-TZP: An In Vitro Study

“…However, achieving an ideal bond strength with extremely hard and durable monolithic zirconia remains challenging in adult orthodontic treatment [ 18 ]. In clinical practice, the bond strength of brackets to ceramic restorations should be sufficiently high to withstand intraoral masticatory forces and orthodontic forces during treatment while also being low enough to prevent permanent damage to the ceramic surface during bracket removal at the end of treatment [ 7 , 22 ].…”

“…It has the possibility of irritating intraoral tissues and causing mechanical damage to soft tissues. Additionally, there is a risk of inhalation of aluminum oxide particles [ 22 ]. However, these risks can be minimized in clinical practice by using effective aspiration devices to minimize the dispersion of particles.…”