Bond strength of metal brackets bonded to a silica-based ceramic with light-cured adhesive : Influence of various surface treatment methods

The Effect of Various Lasers on the Bond Strength Between Orthodontic Brackets and Dental Ceramics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess how laser conditioning affected brackets bonded to dental ceramics' shear bond strength (SBS). Materials and methods: The study was conducted by searching Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to September 14, 2022. In addition, the reference lists of the relevant articles were checked manually. Articles that compared SBS of laser-treated feldspathic, lithium disilicate, or zirconia surfaces with other standard techniques for bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets were considered. Using a random-effects model, data pooling was carried out as the weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: This study initially contained 1717 reports, and following review, 32 articles were deemed suitable for our meta-analysis. The pooling results showed that the treatments with lasers such as "Er:YAG" [WMD = -1.12 MPa; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.93 to -0.31], "Er:YAG + Silane" (WMD = -3.08 MPa; 95% CI: -4.77 to -1.40), and "Nd: YAG + Silane" (WMD = -2.58 MPa; 95% CI: -3.76 to -1.40) had statistically significant lower adhesion values compared with controls. Contrarily, "Ti:Sapphire femtosecond" demonstrated significantly higher bonding values (WMD = 0.94 MPa; 95% CI: 0.29-1.60). In contrast, other interventions obtained no statistically significant difference in SBS. Conclusions: Most of the laser groups showed results comparable with those of conventional approaches. Although more research is necessary for definitive conclusions, laser treatment may be an effective option for treating the surfaces of ceramic materials.

Influence of different surface treatment on bonding of metal and ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials

BACKGROUND

Developing efficient bonding techniques for orthodontic brackets and all-ceramic materials continues to pose a clinical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strengths (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets to various all-ceramic CAD-CAM materials, such as lithium disilicate CAD (LDS-CAD), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS), and 5YTZP zirconia after different surface treatments and thermal cycling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The samples were divided into two groups to be bonded with ceramic and metal lower incisor brackets. Each group was subdivided into a control group devoid of any surface treatment, 10% HF acid (HFA) etching, ceramic etch & prime (MEP), Al2O3 air abrasion, and medium grit diamond bur roughening. After surface treatment, brackets were bonded with composite resin cement, thermal cycled, and tested for shear bond strength. The failed surfaces were evaluated with a digital microscope to analyse the type of failure. The data were statistically analysed using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The highest mean bond strengths were found with HFA etching in LDS-CAD (13.17 ± 0.26 MPa) and ZLS (12.85 0.52 MPa). Diamond bur recorded the lowest mean bond strength roughening across all the ceramic groups. There were significant differences in mean shear bond values per surface treatment (p < 0.001) and ceramic materials.

CONCLUSION

Among the surface treatment protocols evaluated, HFA etching and MEP surface treatment resulted in enhanced bond strength of both ceramic and metal brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials.

Effectiveness of surface treatment on bond strength of ceramic brackets to two types of CAD/CAM-prepared nanohybrid composites

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of surface treatment on the shear bond strength of two different adhesive-coated orthodontic ceramic brackets to computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nanohybrid composite.

METHODS

A total of 120 specimens (10 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared from each type of CAD/CAM block (Grandio [GR], VOCO Cuxhaven, Germany; Lava Ultimate [LU], 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). For each type of CAD/CAM block, the plates were divided into four groups based on the applied surface treatment: hydrofluoric acid (HF), grinding bur (GB), silica coating with CoJet system (CS), and titanium tetrafluoride (TiF₄) 2 wt/v%. Maxillary central incisors of adhesive-coated ceramic orthodontic brackets (APC Flash-free Clarity Advanced Ceramic, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) were bonded using Transbond XT Primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). Shear bond strength was conducted, and the modes of failure were assessed utilizing the adhesive remnant index. Surface roughness and topography of treated CAD/CAM were evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test. The Weibull analysis was conducted on shear bond strength data.

RESULTS

Surface treatment with 2% TiF₄ wt/v revealed significantly higher bond strength (GR, 14.51 ± 2.57 MPa; LU, 11.19 ± 2.17 MPa) than other groups for both types of CAD/CAM restorative materials (p < 0.05). Adhesive failures were the predominant mode of failure. Surface treatment with CS revealed higher surface roughness than other groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surface treatment with 2% TiF₄ wt/v enhanced the adhesion between orthodontic ceramic brackets to GR and LU CAD/CAM composite restorative materials. GR CAD/CAM nanohybrid composite had higher bond strength than LU to ceramic orthodontic brackets.

What Is the Most Effective Technique for Bonding Brackets on Ceramic-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The current state of the art regarding the most effective method to achieve an appropriate bond strength of brackets on ceramic surfaces isn’t consensual. This systematic review aims to compare the available surface treatments to ceramics and determine the one that allows to obtain the best bond strength. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO methodology was used, with the question “What is the most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic crowns or veneers?”. The research was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. In vitro and ex vivo studies were included. The methodological quality was evaluated using the guidelines for reporting of preclinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. Results: A total of 655 articles searched in various databases were initially scrutinized. Sevety one articles were chosen for quality analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high in most studies. The use of hydrofluoric acid (HF), silane and laser afforded the overall best results. HF and HF plus laser achieved significantly highest bond strength scores in felsdphatic porcelain, while laser was the best treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics. Conclusions: The most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic is dependent on the type of ceramic.

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

Objective

The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods.

Material and methods

Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi² test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined.

Results

LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level.

Conclusions

MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary.

Clinical relevance

There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Ceramic materials are constantly evolving, achieving good functionality and aesthetics. Bonding to ceramics may be difficult because of high toxicity procedures and risk of surface damage. The review aims to answer several research questions: Is there a golden standard for bonding to ceramic? Are there adhesives or types of photopolymerization lamps that produce a higher bond strength on certain types of ceramics rather than others? Articles focusing on the bonding process of orthodontic attachments to ceramic surfaces searched in Pubmed, Medline and Embase, published between 1990 and 2018 were revised. Exclusions concerned bonding to non-ceramic surfaces, bonding to ceramic surfaces that are not destined for orthodontics or laser usage. Forty-nine articles that matched the inclusion criteria were researched. The following categories of original research articles were compared and discussed: metallic brackets bonding to ceramic surfaces, ceramic brackets to ceramic surfaces, bonding to new types of ceramics, such as zirconia, lithium disilicate, different photopolymerisation devices used on bonding to ceramics. Some types of adhesive may achieve minimal bond strength (6-8 MPa) even on glazed ceramic. Ceramic surface preparation may be done by sandblasting or hydrofluoric acid (60s application and 9.6%) with generally similar results. Studies rarely show any statistical difference and there are reduced number of samples in most studies. Ceramic brackets show better adhesion to ceramic surfaces and the same bonding protocol is advised. A higher bond strength may lead to ceramic surface. Few studies focus on newer types of ceramics; additional research is necessary. There is no clear evidence that a certain type of photopolymerization device produces higher shear bond strength values.

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

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 less than 0.05) was found in SBS between the groups while significant intergroup differences were detected concerning ARI scores (p less than 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.

Comparison of lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramic surface treatment with hydrofluoric acid, Nd:YAG, and CO2 lasers on shear bond strength of metal brackets

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the effects of different surface conditioning methods of lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic on shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six lithium disilicate ceramic blocks mounted in acrylic resin blocks were assigned to 3 groups (n = 12): 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HF); neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; and carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser. The glass ceramic surfaces were primed with a silane, and the brackets were bonded using a light-cured composite resin. SBS test was carried out in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until the brackets were debonded. The remaining adhesive was evaluated under a stereomicroscope in terms of the adhesive remnant index (ARI). The surface hardness was determined with a 100-gr force using a microhardness tester. Glass ceramic surface changes were evaluated using the scanning electron microscope. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tamhane tests were used to compare microhardness values, and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze SBS values and ARI.

RESULTS

The median and interquartile range of SBS values in 3 groups were 6.48 (1.56-15.18), 1.26 (0.83-1.67), and 0.99 MPa (0.70-2.10), respectively. Microhardness analysis revealed significant differences between the CO₂ laser and intact porcelain groups (P = 0.003), without significant differences between the other groups. Group 1 exhibited the highest ARI.

CONCLUSION

Neither CO₂ nor Nd:YAG lasers resulted in adequate surface changes for bonding of brackets on ceramics compared with the samples conditioned with HF. CO₂ laser decreased the microhardness of ceramics.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surface conditioning with HF resulted in clinically acceptable SBS values.

Orthodontic Bonding: Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasing, and clinicians often have to place brackets on various surfaces aside from enamel. It is crucial to know what materials or instruments are required to bond brackets to each surface.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to serve as a clinical guideline for the safest and most effective approaches taken to condition various surfaces for bonding to orthodontic brackets and provide background knowledge on the subject.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed and EBSCO databases were searched, along with the use of Google Scholar search engine, to obtain relevant articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals, from 1955 to 2020. Keywords used were Shear bond strength; Orthodontic bracket; Base design; Etching; Sandblasting; Laser; Conditioning; Enamel; Ceramic; Porcelain; Gold; Amalgam; Composite.

CONCLUSION

Even though orthophosphoric acid is the most widely used enamel conditioning agent, laser etching should be considered to avoid enamel decalcification. Hydrofluoric acid is the current standard for ceramic conditioning; however, its use intraorally should be minimized due to its toxicity. Orthophosphoric acid, CoJet-Sand air abrasion, and laser etching are viable alternatives for conditioning ceramic. Monobond Etch & Prime is toxic and should not be used intraorally. Composite can be conditioned by bur roughening, and the use of ceramic brackets is recommended. Amalgam and gold surfaces can be conditioned adequately by air abrasion. Despite the claims of many authors, the maximum shear forces that orthodontic brackets are subjected to are not 6-8 mega pascal (MPa). Further investigation is required in that regard. More in vivo studies need to be performed to confirm the in vitro results.

Bond Strength of Metal and Ceramic Brackets on Resin Nanoceramic Material With Different Surface Treatments

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different surface conditoning methods on surface texture and shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded to resin nanoceramic material.

Methods

Ceramic specimens were divided into two groups as metal brackets and ceramic brackets. In each group, the following five subgroups were conditoned with orthophosphoric acid (OPA), hydrofluoric acid (HFA), silica coating with Cojet, Nd: Yag laser, and Femtosecond (Fs) laser. Extra samples were used for scanning electron microscopy and 3D profilometer evaluation.

Results

All surface conditioning methods caused optimum or higher SBS. Metal brackets had higher SBS than porcelain brackets, but this difference reached statistical significance only in Fs laser group. OPA caused surface modification comparable to HFA because of polymer content of resin nanoceramic. Although Fs laser and Cojet conditioning caused optimum or higher SBS, surface damage of these methods to the resin nanoceramic specimens clearly seen on 3D profilometer.

Conclusion

HFA and Nd: Yag laser are effective surface conditioning methods for resin nanoceramics. OPA combined with silane application caused optimum SBS and can be used as an alternative to HFA. Surface texture changes should be considered to determine surface damage while deciding the optimum surface conditioning method for ceramics other than SBS.

Adhesive luting of orthodontic devices to silica-based ceramic crowns-comparison of shear bond strength and surface properties

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of different clinical conditioning approaches and an ammonium polyfluoride- and trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate-based experimental primer for intraoral luting of buccal tubes on silica-based ceramic surfaces.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 leucite-reinforced glass ceramic molar crowns were conditioned using different methods (n = 10): I-roughening, hydrofluoric acid, silane; II-roughening, silane; III-roughening, experimental coupling agent; IV-experimental coupling agent; V-roughening; VI-no treatment. A buccal tube was adhesively luted to the ceramic surface. Subsequently, water storage, thermocycling and chewing simulation were carried out. The shear bond strength (SBS) was determined, and changes in the surface were assessed.

RESULTS

All tubes of the control group (group VI) debonded after incubation. The conditioning methods using coupling agents revealed mean values for SBS of 61.56 MPa (group I), 45.53 MPa (group III), 41.65 MPa (group II), and 23.14 MPa (group IV). In groups I-III, both composite residues and cracks/tear-outs were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The conditioning of silicate ceramic surfaces with a suitable coupling agent system appears to allow sufficient adhesive luting of buccal tubes. The intraoral luting of fixed appliance elements on silicate ceramic surfaces using an ammonium polyfluoride- and trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate-based ceramic primer can withstand orthodontic forces.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ammonium polyfluoride- and trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate-based ceramic primers revealed promising results for the intraoral adhesive luting of orthodontic devices to silica-based ceramic crowns.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to a new all-ceramic crown composed of lithium silicate infused with zirconia: An in vitro comparative study

AIM

This study sought to determine whether a clinically acceptable shear bond strength (SBS) of metal orthodontic brackets is achievable to CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design/Manufacturing) lithium silicate infused with zirconia and whether a chemical pre-treatment bonding protocol produced a higher shear bond strength.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO) samples, twenty zirconia samples, and twenty lithium disilicate samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a mandibular left first molar. The samples were split into two test groups, one of which received a chemical pre-treatment protocol (hydrofluoric acid etch). Shear bond strength testing was conducted and the mean, maximum, minimal, and standard deviation SBS values for each were calculated and recorded in MPa. An Adhesive Resin Index (ARI) score was also assigned to each sample to assess the mode of bond failure.

RESULTS

SBS of the lithium silicate infused with zirconia groups were significantly less than the chemically pre-treated lithium disilicate group, however both materials, when chemical pre-treatment protocol was used, were not statistically different than the enamel control.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic bonding to lithium silicate infused with zirconia yielded a weaker shear bond strength than bonding to traditional lithium disilicate, however, when the surface was pre-treated with hydrofluoric acid etch it provides a bond strength that is within an acceptable clinical range.

Effect of different surface treatment methods on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to temporary crowns

INTRODUCTION

The number of adult patients seeking orthodontic treatment has been consistently increasing. Since the placing of the final restoration must be postponed until the completion of the orthodontic treatment, provisional restoration is recommended for the duration of the orthodontic treatment. These surfaces have special chemical properties, which necessitate the orthodontists to prepare the bonding area with special measures.

METHODS

Polycarbonate and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) crowns (n=80) were randomly subdivided into 4 groups. Conditioning methods were grinding, sandblasting, CO₂ laser and methyl methacrylate application. Samples underwent SBS testing. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was carried out. The data was analysed with ANOVA, Student t-test and Post-hoc test. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was analysed with Chi² test.

RESULTS

In all surface treatments, the mean Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of PMMA was significantly higher than that of polycarbonate (P<0.001). In the polycarbonate groups, there was a significant difference between the mean SBS of the four treatment methods (P<0.001). However, there were no significant differences in PMMA group (P=0.076). In both crown materials, the mode of the failure was adhesive type, regardless of the conditioning method (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PMMAs rendered higher bond strength than polycarbonates. In PMMA, all the surface treatment methods resulted in acceptable bond strength. However, if bonding the brackets to polycarbonate crown is needed, other conditioning methods are preferred over CO₂ laser.

Shear bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces using a universal bonding resin

Background

Assure Plus is a recently introduced universal adhesive with the ability to bond to various restorations. This study compared the shear bond strength of brackets bonded to two types of ceramics using conventional bonding agent and Assure Plus. Surface damage caused by debonding was also evaluated.

Material and Methods

In this in vitro study, 40 feldspathic and lithium disilicate ceramic discs were sandblasted, etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and divided into two groups. In group 1, silane was applied and air-dried followed by application of Transbond XT primer, which was light-cured. In group 2, Assure Plus was applied and air-dried. In both groups, maxillary central incisor brackets were bonded. After incubation in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and 2000 thermal cycles, bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and failure modes were determined. ANOVA and LSD tests were used to compare bond strength values; chi-squared test was used to compare ARI scores.

Results

Bracket bond to lithium disilicate by Assure Plus was significantly stronger than that to Feldspathic porcelain (P=0.041). Only in the Assure Plus/lithium disilicate group did some adhesive remain on the surface following debonding (40% of samples, P<0.05). Cohesive porcelain fracture had the lowest frequency in the lithium disilicate/Assure Plus group.

Conclusions

Assure Plus provided high bond strength between ceramic and brackets and minimized damage to lithium disilicate ceramic during debonding. Assure Plus is recommended for use in orthodontic treatment of adults with ceramic restorations.

Key words:Adhesives, ceramics, dental bonding, shear bond strength.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.