scholarly journals Evaluation of shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Uysal ◽  
A. Ustdal ◽  
G. Kurt
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

scholarly journals Analysis of Shear Bond Strength and Morphology of Er:YAG Laser-Recycled Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruo-qiao Han ◽  
Kai Yang ◽  
Ling-fei Ji ◽  
Chen Ling
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Laser Scanning ◽  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Laser Scanning Microscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Test Machine ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the recycling of deboned ceramic brackets via an Er:YAG laser or via the traditional chairside processing methods of flaming and sandblasting; shear bond strength and morphological changes were evaluated in recycled brackets versus new brackets.Materials and Methods. 3M Clarity Self-Ligating Ceramic Brackets with a microcrystalline base were divided into groups subjected to flaming, sandblasting, or exposure to an Er:YAG laser. New ceramic brackets served as a control group. Shear bond strengths were determined with an Electroforce test machine and tested for statistical significance through analysis of variance. Morphological examinations of the recycled ceramic bracket bases were conducted with scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Residue on the bracket base was analyzed with Raman spectroscopy.Results. Faded, dark adhesive was left on recycled bracket bases processed via flaming. Adhesive was thoroughly removed by both sandblasting and exposure to an Er:YAG laser. Compared with new brackets, shear bond strength was lower after sandblasting (p<0.05), but not after exposure to an Er:YAG laser. The Er:YAG laser caused no damage to the bracket.Conclusion. Er:YAG lasers effectively remove adhesive from the bases of ceramic brackets without damaging them; thus, this method may be preferred over other recycling methods.

scholarly journals Assessment the Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets to CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Composite and Interpenetrating Network Composite after Different Surface Treatments

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Mehmet Özarslan ◽  
Özlem Üstün ◽  
Ulviye Sebnem Buyukkaplan ◽  
Çağatay Barutcigil ◽  
Nurullah Türker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Interpenetrating Network ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
New Generation

Adult orthodontics may confront problems related to the bonding performance of orthodontic brackets to new generation restorative materials used for crown or laminate restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to two new generation CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite after different surface treatments. Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, hydrofluoric acid (9%), sandblasting (50 μm Al2O3), and silane were applied to the surfaces of 120 CAD/CAM specimens with 2 mm thickness and then ceramic brackets were bonded to the treated surfaces of the specimens. Bond strength was evaluated using the shear bond strength test. According to the results, CAD/CAM block types and surface treatment methods have significant effects on shear bond strength. The lowest bond strength values were found in the specimens treated with silane (3.35 ± 2.09 MPa) and highest values were found in the specimens treated with sandblast (8.92 ± 2.77 MPa). Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid surface treatment led to the most durable bonds for the two types of CAD/CAM blocks in the present study. In conclusion, different surface treatments affect the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite. Among the evaluated treatments, sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid application resulted in sufficient bonding strength to ceramic brackets for both of the CAD/CAM materials.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs to Feldspathic Porcelains

2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Buncha Samruajbenjakul ◽  
Boonlert Kukiattrakoon
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive Failure ◽  
Metal Mesh ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Large Round ◽  
Feldspathic Porcelain ◽  
Base Design

Abstract Objective: To test the hypothesis that the there is no difference between the shear bond strengths of different base designs of ceramic brackets bonded to glazed feldspathic porcelains. Materials and Methods: Forty glazed feldspathic porcelain specimens (15 mm in diameter and 1.5 mm in thickness) were prepared and divided into 4 groups (n = 10). Ten pieces of each group of different ceramic bracket base designs (beads, large round pits, and irregular base) and one group of stainless steel brackets (served as a control) were bonded to glazed feldspathic porcelains under a 200 gram load. Then all samples were subjected to shear bond strength evaluation with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.2 mm/min. Data were analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test at a .05 significance level. The mode of failure after debonding was examined under a stereoscope. Results: This study revealed that the beads base design had the greatest shear bond strength (24.7 ± 1.9 MPa) and was significantly different from the large round pits base (21.3 ± 2 MPa), irregular base (19.2 ± 2.0 MPa), and metal mesh base (15.2 ± 2.4 MPa). The beads base design had 100% porcelain-adhesive failure, the large round pits had 100% bracket-adhesive failure, and the irregular base design had 70% combination failure and 30% porcelain-adhesive failure. Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. The various base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence bond strength to glazed feldspathic porcelain, but all should be clinically acceptable.

scholarly journals Heat treatment following surface silanization in rebonded tribochemical silica-coated ceramic brackets: shear bond strength analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Adriane Silva ◽  
Flavia Zardo Trindade ◽  
Helcio Nagib Jose Feres Reskalla ◽  
Jose Renato Cavalcanti de Queiroz
Keyword(s):  
Heat Treatment ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Strength Analysis ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Two Bonding Adhesives

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. H. Sam ◽  
S. Y. Chao ◽  
K. H. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

The shear bond strength of two adhesives (Concise® and Dyna-Plus® bonding system) with one type of ceramic bracket was determined in this study. There were statistically significant differences between the bond strengths, with Concisereg; recording higher levels than Dyna-Plus®. Failure sites of Dyna-Plus® were revealed at the enamel/resin, resin/resin, and resin/bracket interfaces; that of the Concise® was mainly at the resin/bracket interface.

scholarly journals Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Maurício da Rocha ◽  
Marco Abdo Gravina ◽  
Marcio José da Silva Campos ◽  
Cátia Cardoso Abdo Quintão ◽  
Carlos Nelson Elias ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Topography ◽  
Level Set ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Tissue Loss ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Mineral Particles ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in vitro, the shear bond strength presented by three brands of polycrystalline ceramic brackets and one brand of metallic bracket; verify the adhesive remnant index (ARI) after the tests, and analyze, through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the enamel surface topography after debonding, detecting the release of mineral particles. METHODS: Sixty bovine lower incisors were used. Three ceramic brackets (Allure(r), InVu(r), and Clarity(r)) and one metallic bracket (Geneus(r)) were bonded with Transbond XT(r). Kruskal-Wallis's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of share bond and ARI. Mann Whitney's test was performed to compare the pairs of brackets in relation to their ARI. Brown-Forsythe's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of enamel chemical composition. Comparisons between groups were made with Games-Howell's and the Post-hoc tests. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the shear bond strength loads. Clarity(r) brackets were the most affected in relation to the surface topography and to the release of mineral particles of enamel (calcium ions). CONCLUSION: With regard to the ARI, there was a prevalence of score 4 (40.4%). As for enamel surface topography, the Geneus(r) bracket was the only one which did not show superficial tissue loss. The InVu(r) and Clarity(r) ones showed cohesive fractures in 33.3% and the Allure(r) in 50%, the latter being the one that presented most fractures during removal.

scholarly journals Three-Dimensional Surface Evaluation and Shear Bond Strength of Three Pre-treatment E-max Surfaces for Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-118
Author(s):  
Huda A. Mohammed ◽  
Omar S. Ali
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Roughness Parameter ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Maximum Load ◽  
Maximum Height ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Pre Treatment

3D evaluation and shear bond strength (SBS) for metal and ceramic brackets after three pre-treatment surfaces of lithium disilicate (LD) crowns. Sixty lithium disilicate (LD) crowns were fabricated in laboratory according to manufacturer instruction and then divided into six groups (three groups for metal brackets and three groups for ceramic one). The 1st group for both was treated with round diamond bur, the 2nd one by hydrofluoric acid (HFA) 9.0%, and the 3rd group by laser (Er,Cr:YSGG). All treated surfaces were examined by laser profilometer and scan electron microscope. The Scotchbond Universal Adhesive and Transbond XT were used for bracketing procedure for metal and ceramic bracket (central incisor, 0,022” slot). Universal testing machine was used for shear bond. A crosshead speed of 1 mm/min was used, and the maximum load necessary to deboned the bracket will be recorded. HFA treated surfaces gave a highest SBS for both metal and ceramic brackets, then laser and finally the bur. The lowest roughness parameter Sa (arithmetical mean height) was in bur, both laser and HFA gave no significant differences. The HFA gave a highest Sz (maximum height) and Spc (arithmetic mean peak curvature) value. To increase the shear bond strength, the HFA is one of the best methods for roughness although the laser gave nearby roughness parameters. Ceramic brackets gave higher SBS than metal one with all pre-treatment procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document