scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets of three different base designs bonded to amalgam and composite restorations with different surface treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Maryam Shirazi ◽  
Monirsadat Mirzadeh ◽  
Malek Modirrousta ◽  
Sepideh Arab
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

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 Effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to old composite

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Homa Farhadifard ◽  
Loghman Rezaei-Soufi ◽  
Maryam Farhadian ◽  
Parisa Shokouhi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Aged Composite

Abstract Background At present, the demand for orthodontic treatment is on the rise. On the other hand, evidence shows that the bond strength of composite resins to old composite restorations is often unreliable. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets to old composite restorations. Methods In this in vitro experimental study, 60 nano-hybrid composite discs were fabricated. For aging, the discs were incubated in deionized water at 37 °C for 1 month. Next, they underwent 4 different surface treatments namely acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid, sandblasting, grinding, and Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation. Ceramic brackets were then bonded to the discs and underwent SBS testing. Results The maximum mean SBS value was obtained in the grinding group (9.16 ± 2.49 MPa), followed by the sandblasting (8.13 ± 2.58 MPa) and laser (6.57 ± 1.45 MPa) groups. The minimum mean SBS value was noted in the control group (5.07 ± 2.14 MPa). Conclusion All groups except for the control group showed clinically acceptable SBS. Therefore, grinding, sandblasting, and Er,Cr:YSGG laser are suggested as effective surface treatments for bonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets to aged composite.

scholarly journals Influence of ceramic surface treatment on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 789 ◽  
Author(s):  
TatianaFernandes Ramos ◽  
MarcosAugusto Lenza ◽  
RogérioVieira Reges ◽  
Gersinei Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to surface-treated feldspathic porcelain after thermocycling

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinar Cevik ◽  
Oguz Eraslan ◽  
Kursat Eser ◽  
Suleyman Tekeli
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Nd:Yag Laser ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Surface Conditioning ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Feldspathic Porcelain

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of six different surface conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to feldspathic porcelain. Materials and methods: A total of 60 feldspathic porcelain disks were fabricated and divided into six subgroups including 10 specimens in each. Specimens were first treated one of the following surface conditioning methods, namely, 37% phosphoric acid (G-H3PO4), 9.4% hydrofluoric acid (G-HF), grinding with diamond burs (G-Grinding), Nd:YAG laser (G-Nd:YAG), Airborne-particle abrasion (G-Abrasion). Specimens were also coated with silane without surface treatment for comparison (G-Untreated). A total of 60 ceramic brackets were bonded to porcelain surfaces with a composite resin and then subjected to thermocycling 2500× between 5°C and 55°C. The shear bond strength test was carried out using a universal testing device at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure types were classified according to the adhesive remnant index. Analysis of variance and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05). Microstructure of untreated and surface-treated specimens was investigated by scanning electron microscopy. Results: Using G-Abrasion specimens resulted in the highest shear bond strength value of 8.58 MPa for feldspathic porcelain. However, the other specimens showed lower values: G-Grinding (6.51 MPa), G-Nd:YAG laser (3.37 MPa), G-HF (2.71 MPa), G-H3PO4 (1.17 MPa), and G-Untreated (0.93 MPa). Conclusion: Airborne-particle abrasion and grinding can be used as surface treatment techniques on the porcelain surface for a durable bond strength. Hydrofluoric acid and phosphoric acid etching methods were not convenient as surface treatment methods for the feldspathic porcelain.

scholarly journals Comparison of Shear Strength of Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Depending on Surface Treatment: An In Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 150-155
Author(s):  
Sibel Cetik ◽  
Thaï Hoang Ha ◽  
Léa Sitri ◽  
Hadrien Duterme ◽  
Viet Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Preparation ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Abstract Objectives Due to the high demand for all-ceramic restorations, monolithic zirconia restorations are nowadays frequently used. With the demand for adult orthodontic treatments, orthodontists need to be mindful of the quality of their brackets bonding to this type of material, as it requires special conditioning. This study aimed to compare different surface treatments of zirconia when bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets. The objectives are to compare the shear bond strength; the amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of the material; the incidence of adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failures; and the occurrence of zirconia fractures. Materials and Methods Forty monolithic blocks of zirconia of a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm were prepared and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20): metallic or ceramic brackets. Each group was subsequently divided into two subgroups (n = 10) depending on the surface preparation (laser treatment or airborne particle abrasion): SMB (airborne particle abrasion, metal bracket), SCB (airborne particle abrasion, ceramic bracket), LMB (laser; metal bracket), and LCB (laser, ceramic bracket). The samples were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index and the occurrence of zirconia fractures and different types of failures were assessed by optical and electron microscopy. Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. Results The differences were significant between the metallic (SMB, LMB) and ceramic (SCB, LCB) bracket groups with regard to shear bond strength, with respectively 23.29 ± 5.34 MPa, 21.59 ± 4.03 MPa, 20.06 ± 4.05 MPa, and 17.55 ± 3.88 MPa. In terms of surface treatment, no statistical differences were found between the different groups. Conclusion Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia. The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Metal and Ceramic Brackets to Composite Using Single Bond and Universal Adhesive

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (D) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Hoda Pouyanfar ◽  
Amin Golshah ◽  
Matin Shekarbeigi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

AIM: This study aimed to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to composite restorations using single bond 5th generation bonding agent and G-Premio Bond universal adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro, experimental study, 60 sound extracted human premolars were veneered with composite and were then randomly divided into four groups (n = 15) of Single Bond + Transbond XT + metal brackets, universal adhesive + Transbond XT+ metal brackets, Single Bond + Transbond XT + ceramic brackets, and universal adhesive + Transbond XT + ceramic brackets. Twenty-four hours after thermocycling, the SBS of brackets was measured using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was also determined under a stereomicroscope. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the groups (p <0.05). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the mean SBS of ceramic and metal brackets or between the two bonding agents (p > 0.05). The interaction effect of type of bracket and type of bonding agent on SBS was not significant (p > 0.05). ARI score I had the highest frequency in Single Bond + Metal bracket group. The highest frequency of ARI score V was noted in the Single Bond + Ceramic bracket group. A comparison of ARI scores of metal bracket groups showed a significant difference between single bond and universal adhesive (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Both adhesives can provide adequate SBS for the bonding of metal and ceramic brackets to composite restorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document