Effect of Different Surface Treatment Modalities on Surface Roughness and Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Molar Tubes to Lithium Disilicate Ceramics

Abstract

Objectives; This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatment modalities on surface roughness(SR) and shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic molar tubes to lithium disilicate (IPS e-max CAD/CAM, Ivoclar Vivadent) ceramic and human enamel using different adhesives. Materials and methods:A total of 150 e-max specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n=30) according to the method of surface treatment used. In group I (control group): no surface treatment, group II: sandblasting with 50 μm Al 2 O 3 slurry particles, group III: etching with hydrofluoric acid 9.6%, group IV: etching with hydrofluoric acid 4.5% and group V: etching with phosphoric acid 37%. Further random distribution of e-max specimens into subgroups was performed according to the type of adhesive used (One coat 7, G-Premio Bond and Ortho solo). The surface roughness was investigated using digital profilometer and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Microstructural analysis was conducted using scanning electron microscope (SEM).The SBS was measured using universal testing machine. Results were statistically analyzed.Results: Results showed that the sandblasting group had significantly highest surface roughness, while the lowest value was recorded in the Phosphoric acid 37% group. Furthermore, sandblasted group showed the highest SBS, while control group showed the lowest SBS. Strong positive correlation was found between the surface roughness of lithium disilicate and shear bond strength. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between different adhesive agents use.Conclusions: Shear bond strength was highly affected by the surface roughness which subsequently controlled by the surface treatment modalities and not by the adhesives types. Hydrofluoric acid 4.5% and phosphoric acid 37% are recommended techniques for reliable bond strength between metal tubes and lithium disilicate ceramic.

Shear Bond Strength of Various dental Ceramics Treated with two Techniques of Surface Treatment after Thermocycling

“…20, 23-27. The greater surface area and higher surface roughness induced by the usual way of surface treatment can explain the rise in bond strength values when utilising an etching step with HF+S. Rania and Bayoumi (2019) 28 The surface roughness of lithium disilicate and SBS were shown to have a substantial positive association, according to their study.…”

Bonding of Clear Aligner Composite Attachments to Ceramic Materials: An In Vitro Study

“…Mechanical roughening can be performed by air abrasion or using a diamond bur. On the other hand, chemical roughening includes the application of hydrofluoric acid (HFA) and phosphoric acid (PhA), followed by silane coupling agents [16][17][18][19]. Sundfeld et al and Garboza et al showed that etching lithium disilicate ceramics with 10% HFA for 20 s with subsequent silane application resulted in high bond strengths [20,21].…”

“…Currently, with the availability of multiple types of aesthetic restorations and bonding techniques, orthodontists are facing challenges in determining the best methods in surface conditioning and bonding procedures to ceramics that makes a good attachments bond and that does not affect the ceramic's surface after debonding [13,19]. Moreover, choosing the best composite type to produce durable attachments is considered another challenge.…”

“…Moreover, choosing the best composite type to produce durable attachments is considered another challenge. Moreover, the majority of studies have been conducted on orthodontic brackets bonded to feldspathic ceramic; however, studies on other types of ceramics are limited [19]. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of three different factors (surface conditioning methods, bonding agents and composite types) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite attachments bonded to lithium disilicate ceramics.…”

“…Based on previous research [19] and the power of test calculation (power analysis) using α level of 0.05 and 80% power and effect size equal to 0.7 for the shear bond strength, the sample size was found to be 6 samples per group. However, 10 samples per group was included in this study.…”