scholarly journals Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials

2018 ◽  
pp. e1167-e1176
Author(s):  
N Juntavee ◽  
A Juntavee ◽  
K Wongnara ◽  
P Klomklorm ◽  
R Khechonnan
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

scholarly journals In vitro testing of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different novel CAD/CAM ceramics

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-243
Author(s):  
Eglal Ahmed Ghozy ◽  
Marwa Sameh Shamaa ◽  
Ahmed A. El-Bialy
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Ceramic Substrates ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Ceramic Blocks ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Background. The present study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of metal bracket (MB) and ceramic bracket (CB) bonded to different CAD/CAM ceramic substrates etched with hydrofluoric acid (HFA) vs. phosphoric acid (PA). Methods. A total of 120 CAD/CAM ceramic blocks in 12 groups were fabricated from three different CAD/CAM ceramic materials: VITABLOCS Mark II, VITAENAMIC, and IPS e.max CAD. Each ceramic material group was divided into two etching groups: one treated with 9.5% HFA and the other treated with 37%. Sixty metal and CBs of the upper right central incisor were bonded to the HFA-treated blocks. Another 60 metal and CBs were bonded to the PA treated blocks. All the bonded specimens were thermocycled before shear bond strength (SBS) testing. Then the bond failure mode was recorded Results. There were no significant differences in SBS values between the three CAD/CAM ceramic materials. The HFA-treated specimens exhibited significantly higher SBS values than the PA-treated specimens. Also, the SBS values of CBs were significantly higher than the metal brackets (MBs). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was 4 for most of the groups, indicating that almost no adhesive remained on the porcelain surface. Conclusion. The CAD/CAM ceramic type did not influence SBS; however, HFA exhibited significantly higher SBS compared to PA.

scholarly journals Effects of different etching methods and bonding procedures on shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets applied to different CAD/CAM ceramic materials

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kutalmış Buyuk ◽  
Ahmet Serkan Kucukekenci
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Ceramic Surfaces ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Hybrid Ceramic

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic metal brackets applied to different types of ceramic surfaces treated with different etching procedures and bonding agents. Materials and Methods: Monolithic CAD/CAM ceramic specimens (N = 120; n = 40 each group) of feldspathic ceramic Vita Mark II, resin nanoceramic Lava Ultimate, and hybrid ceramic Vita Enamic were fabricated (14 × 12 × 3 mm). Ceramic specimens were separated into four subgroups (n = 10) according to type of surface treatment and bonding onto the ceramic surface. Within each group, four subgroups were prepared by phosphoric acid, hydrofluoric acid, Transbond XT primer, and Clearfill Ceramic primer. Mandibular central incisor metal brackets were bonded with light-cure composite. The SBS data were analyzed using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests. Results: The highest SBS was found in the Vita Enamic group, which is a hybrid ceramic, etched with hydrofluoric acid and applied Transbond XT Adhesive primer (7.28 ± 2.49 MPa). The lowest SBS was found in the Lava Ultimate group, which is a resin nano-ceramic etched with hydrofluoric acid and applied Clearfill ceramic primer (2.20 ± 1.21 MPa). Conclusions: CAD/CAM material types and bonding procedures affected bond strength (P < .05), but the etching procedure did not (P > .05). The use of Transbond XT as a primer bonding agent resulted in higher SBS.

The effect of MDP-based primer on shear bond strength of various cements to two different ceramic materials

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1142-1150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elif Pak Tunc ◽  
Fusun Ozer ◽  
Simel Ayyildiz ◽  
Taylan A. Ula ◽  
Deniz Sen
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Materials

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 Effects of surface-conditioning methods on shear bond strength of brackets bonded to different all-ceramic materials

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 667-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. S. Sarac ◽  
T. Kulunk ◽  
S. Elekdag-Turk ◽  
D. Sarac ◽  
T. Turk
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Surface Conditioning ◽  
All Ceramic

scholarly journals Effect of Different Surface Treatments for Ceramic Bracket Base on Bond Strength of Rebonded Brackets

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique Kruger Guarita ◽  
Alexa Helena Köhler Moresca ◽  
Estela Maris Losso ◽  
Alexandre Moro ◽  
Ricardo Cesar Moresca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Base

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of rebonded ceramic brackets after subjecting the bracket base to different treatments. Seventy-five premolars were selected and randomly distributed into five groups (n=15), according to the type of the bracket surface treatment: I, no treatment, first bonding (control); II, sandblasting with aluminum oxide; III, sandblasting + silane; IV, silica coating + silane; and V, silicatization performed in a laboratory (Rocatec system). The brackets were fixed on an enamel surface with Transbond XT resin without acid etching. The brackets were then removed and their bases were subjected to different treatments. Thereafter, the brackets were fixed again to the enamel surface and the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) test. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was then evaluated for each specimen. Data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α=0.05). A statistically significant difference was observed only between Rocatec and the other groups; the Rocatec group showed the lowest SBS values. The highest SBS values were observed for group 1, without any significant difference from the values for groups II, III and IV. Most groups had a higher percentage of failures at the enamel-resin interface (score 1). It was concluded that the surface treatments of rebonded ceramic brackets were effective, with SBS values similar to that of the control group, except Rocatec group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document