The critical bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to dental glass-ceramics

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.

Bracket Bonding to All-Ceramic Materials with Universal Adhesives

The need for bracket bonding to ceramic restorations is increasing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of universal adhesives on bracket adhesion to polished or glazed lithium disilicate (LDS) and monolithic zirconia (MZ) surfaces. One hundred and twenty brackets (N = 10) were bonded to either polished or glazed LDS (e.max CAD B32, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and MZ (In-Ceram^® YZ, VITA, Bad Sackingen, Germany) blocks using three different adhesives combined with Transbond™ XT Paste (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). Tested universal adhesives were Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M St. Paul, MN, USA) and Assure Plus (AP, Reliance, Itasca, IL, USA). Transbond™ XT Primer (XTP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) served as a control adhesive. Bracket bond strength was measured in shear mode (SBS). Failure type was determined by the Modified Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Data were statistically analyzed. On polished LDS, SU yielded bracket SBS significantly superior to those of AP and XTP. On polished MZ, the use of SU and AP significantly enhanced bracket retention as compared with XTP. Low SBS values, below the threshold of clinical acceptability, were reached by all tested adhesives on glazed LDS and MZ specimens. SBS measurements corresponded with failure type observations. Universal adhesives SU and AP could be considered for use on polished LDS and MZ surfaces.

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.

Comparison of feldspathic veneer surface treatments on ceramic bracket SBS, ARI and surface roughness after different debonding/polishing methods: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse, in vitro, surface properties and the shear bond strength after debonding and polishing procedures of ceramic brackets directly bonded to 0.3-0.5-mm thick feldspathic veneers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty six feldspathic ceramic veneers samples (0.3 to 0.5-mm thick) were allocated into groups according to veneers surface treatment procedures: (S) glaze layer was retained; (SHF) hydrofluoric (HF) acid etch; (SOXA) Al2O3 sandblasting; and (SB) diamond burs roughening. Specimens were treated with silane Monobond N® and ceramic brackets bonded with Transbond XT^®. Shear bonding strength (SBS) was assessed with a universal testing machine and ARI evaluated under a stereomicroscopic coupled to a digital camera. Remaining bonding composite was removed using a porcelain polishing kit and surface roughness assessed with a stylus profilometer.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were identified for SBS among the study groups (S, SHF, SOXA and SB) (P>0.05). The majority of the specimens presented ARI scores 3 and 2 (P>0.05). All of the study groups presented increased surface roughness after debonding and polishing procedures (P<0.05), with significant greater values observed in SB group (RaF: 1.27±0.41; RzF: 6.23±1.82), (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surface treatment with hydrofluoric acid etch, Al₂O₃ sandblasting and diamond bur did not enhance SBS of orthodontic brackets bonded to ceramic veneers. Ceramic surfaces treated with diamond burs presented significantly increased roughness after adhesive removal.

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.

Predictors of orthodontic treatment conclusion: A historical cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The study investigated which patient and orthodontic treatment factors act as predictors for the conclusion of the ongoing treatment in a dental clinic of a specialization program in Orthodontics.

METHODS

Data were collected from the records of patients treated from 1997 to 2015. Potential predictors for treatment conclusion were investigated: patient-related factors (PRFs) and treatment-related factors (TRFs). PRFs were sex, age, face balance, Angle malocclusion classification, open bite, denture, facial pattern, facial profile, buccal corridor, crossbite, maxillary deficiency, and sagittal mandibular behavior; and TRFs were therapeutic approaches, treatment modality, extractions, and Bolton discrepancy. The initial and final treatment dates were collected. Descriptive data analysis, univariate, and multivariate logistic regression were performed (5% significance).

RESULTS

Of the 903 records, 561 patients were included in the study. It was demonstrated that starting the treatment at a young age (PRF) and the presence of crossbite (TRF) are predictive factors for the treatment conclusion. A vertical facial pattern (dolichofacial or brachyfacial) and a greater number of extractions for orthodontic reasons may contribute positively to the conclusion of the treatment. The frequency of treatment inconclusion was higher during the first 2 years of treatment (more than 50% of the patients that initiated the treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

Young age at the beginning of treatment and the presence of crossbite malocclusion can increase the chance of treatment conclusion.

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.

Shear bond strength evaluation of metallic brackets bonded to a CAD/CAM PMMA material compared to traditional prosthetic temporary materials: an in vitro study

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic treatment for adults is currently increasing, and therefore the need to bond brackets to restorations and temporary crowns. The use of CAD/CAM PMMA provisional restorations for orthodontic purposes have not yet been described, and there is currently insufficient information regarding the strength of bracket adhesion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at evaluating the effects of thermocycling (TC) and surface treatment on shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets to different provisional materials.

METHODS

Forty specimens were made from each material [PMMA (Telio Lab), bis-acryl (Telio CS C&B), and PMMA CAD/CAM (Telio CAD)], sandpapered, and divided according to surface treatment (pumiced or sandblasted) and TC (half of the samples = 1,000 cycles, 5°C/55°C water baths) (n = 10/group). Stainless-steel brackets were bonded to the specimens (using Transbond XT), and SBS testing was performed. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA and LSD post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). Failure types were classified with adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores.

RESULTS

SBS values ranged from 1.5 to 14.9 MPa. Sandblasted bis-acryl and sandblasted auto-curing PMMA groups presented similar values (p> 0.05), higher than the CAD/CAM material (p< 0.05), with or without TC. When thermocycled, pumiced bis-acryl showed higher SBS than pumiced acrylic (p= 0.005) and CAD/CAM materials (p= 0.000), with statistical difference (p= 0.009). TC showed negative effect (p< 0.05) for sandblasted bis-acryl and pumiced acrylic groups. ARI predominant score was mostly zero (0) for CAD/CAM, 1 and 2 for bis-acryl, and 1 for acrylic groups.

CONCLUSION

In general, bis-acryl material showed the highest SBS values, followed by acrylic and CAD/CAM materials, which showed SBS values lower than an optimum strength for bonding brackets.

Effect of a single-component ceramic conditioner on shear bond strength of precoated brackets to different CAD/CAM materials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the CAD/CAM material-bracket interface using three surface treatments: following manufacturers' instructions (MI), Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP) and 9.6% hydrofluoric acid plus silane (9.6% HF), after 24 h of water storage (24 h) and 10,000 cycles of thermocycling (TC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 126 crowns with four identical buccal surfaces were fabricated using seven different CAD/CAM materials: CEREC Blocs unglazed (CBU), CEREC Blocs glazed (CBG), IPS Empress CAD (EMP), IPS e.max CAD (EMA), VITA SUPRINITY PC (SUP), inCoris TZI (TZI) and VITA ENAMIC (ENA). A total of 504 APC Flash-Free (APC FF)-precoated brackets were bonded applying three surface treatments: (1) MI; (2) MEP and (3) 9.6% HF. SBS was performed after 24 h and TC. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

MEP conditioning yielded lower SBS results compared with MI and 9.6% HF for CBG (24 h and TC) and EMA (TC) materials. EMP conditioning with MEP after 24 h obtained lower SBS values compared with MI; however, after TC, SBS was similar to MI group and higher than with 9.6% HF. After TC for TZI ceramic, MI protocol (sandblasting) obtained higher SBS scores than MEP, but similar than 9.6% HF. Treatment of ENA with MI and MEP produced higher results than 9.6% HF after TC. SBS results were similar for CBU and SUP, regardless of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although each CAD/CAM material requires specific surface treatment to obtain the highest SBS of APC FF brackets, the treatment with MEP is a valid orthodontic alternative for most of the materials tested. TC significantly decreased SBS for most of the materials.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

MEP can be considered a valid and promising product to condition most of the CAD/CAM ceramics evaluated for APC FF bracket bonding purposes, allowing a faster and safer procedure.

The effect of various mechanical and chemical surface conditioning on the bonding of orthodontic brackets to all ceramic materials

Background/purpose

Increasing the bond strength between the orthodontic brackets and all-ceramic materials is one of the challenges facing orthodontists. The purpose of this study is to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets to two types of all ceramic materials using various surface mechanical and chemical conditioning methods.

Materials and methods

Sixty ceramic blocks were prepared using two types of all ceramic materials (IPS e.max and VITA Suprinity® PC) and treated with 3 surface treatments; surface etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HFA) for 2 mins; surface roughening with Sof-Lex finishing discs; and surface roughening with Sof-Lex finishing discs and etching with HFA. Metal brackets were attached to the surface of the ceramic blocks using light cure orthodontic adhesive. Samples were subjected to 2000 thermo-cycles (5-50 °C) and the SBS was assessed using Instron machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated under light microscope. Descriptive and group comparison were calculated using Two-way ANOVA, Post-hoc Tukey's and Chi-square tests and significance level set at (P < 0.05).Results: surface roughening of both ceramic materials with Sof-Lex discs and HFA resulted in a significant increase in SBS compared to other experimental groups (P < 0.05). However, VITA Suprinity ceramic prepared with Sof-Lex discs only showed the lowest SBS. The distribution of the ARI scores was significantly different between the groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Surface preparation of all ceramic materials with Sof-Lex discs and hydrofluoric acid combination produces the highest SBS to metallic orthodontic brackets.

Effects of contact compressive force on bracket bond strength and adhesive thickness : Study using orthodontic resins with different viscosities

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of the contact compressive force to seat orthodontic brackets on shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive thickness using adhesive resins with different viscosities.

METHODS

A total of 184 premolars were divided equally into eight groups of 23. Transbond XT and Beauty Ortho Bond paste viscous self-etching adhesive systems were used with contact compressive forces of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 N (groups 1-4 and groups 5-8, respectively) via a push-pull tension gauge. SBS and adhesive thickness were measured in each adhesive system for each contact compressive force.

RESULTS

Significant differences existed in the SBSs between the adhesive systems for each contact compressive force and the SBSs were significantly higher in groups 1 (17 MPa) and 2 (16 MPa) than in groups 3 (14 MPa) and 4 (13 MPa). Significant differences existed for the adhesive thickness between the adhesive systems for the three contact compressive forces less than 3 N. The adhesive in group 1 (0.184 mm) was significantly thicker than that in groups 2-4 (from 0.098 to 0.129 mm). In groups 2 (0.129 mm) and 3 (0.121 mm) it was thicker than in group 4 (0.098 mm), and in group 5 (0.119 mm) it was thicker than in groups 6-8 (from 0.087 to 0.088 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The high-viscosity adhesive Transbond XT exhibited higher SBSs than the low-viscosity Beauty Ortho Bond paste. For the adhesive Transbond XT, lower contact compressive forces produced greater adhesive thicknesses and higher SBSs. For the Beauty Ortho Bond paste, no significant changes in the adhesive thickness or SBS values were observed for contact compressive forces greater than 0.5 N.

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.

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of MIM Technology Brackets with Conventional and Rail-Shaped Mesh Bases: An In Vitro Study

Objective:

The objective of this study was to evaluate in vitro the shear bond strength of two types of MIM (Metal Injection Molding) technology brackets, one with conventional mesh base and the other with rail-shaped mesh base.

Materials and Methods:

Forty human premolars received the bonding of 2 types of brackets: Group 1- 20 Synergy metal brackets (Rocky Mountain) with conventional mesh base and Group 2-20 H4 brackets (OrthoClassic) with rail-shaped mesh base. Both brackets were bonded with Resilience photopolymerizable resin (OrthoTechnology). The specimens were coupled to a Tinius Olsen universal test machine where the shear test was performed using a chisel. In addition, the amount of remaining resin in tooth crown with the ImageJ program was evaluated and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Intergroup comparison was performed by the independent t test and Chi-square test.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for any of the measures evaluated indicating that the mesh type of the brackets’ base with MIM technology did not influence the shear bond strength of the brackets (shear bond strength, p=0.191; maximum load registered, p=0.244). There was also no difference between the percentage (p=0.602) and area of remaining resin in the teeth (p=0.805) and IRA (p=0.625) between the Synergy and H4 groups.

Conclusion:

Shear bond strength was similar in the two types of brackets with MIM technology evaluated. In addition, the remaining resin in the dental enamel of two types of brackets were also similar.