Effects of sandblasting and silica coating on the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets

The best method of reconditioning ceramic brackets to get an optimum shear bond strength compared with new ceramic brackets - Systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

PURPOSE

Bracket debonding is an undesirable problem during fixed orthodontic treatment. As ceramic brackets have no flexibility, there is no change in the slot dimension. So, reconditioning a ceramic bracket can be done without compromising the quality of treatment and could be a cost-effective measure. The objective of this systematic review is to deduce and validate the best method of reconditioning ceramic bracket in order to get optimum clinical shear bond strength.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs); In vitro studies comparing different interventions with control group, cross sectional studies were included. Electronic databases such as Cochrane database, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase were searched up to July 2022. Grey literature search and cross-referencing/snowballing methods were also used. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias using amalgamation of five tools for in vitro studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using random effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in which ten studies were considered as good quality studies. According the meta-analysis performed, the best performance in terms of shear bond strength was of new brackets. Among the different reconditioning methods, the meta-analysis showed that the method with the closest bond strength to the new brackets was silicatisation with a mean difference of 6.35MPa (95% CI between 2.39 and 10.31) followed by sandblasting+silane application with a mean difference of 3.36MPa (95% CI between 0.3 and 6.96) compared to other methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of in vivo studies, only in vitro studies were evaluated. The data available from the in vitro studies was considered to be of good quality, leading to the conclusion that the best method for reconditioning debonded ceramic brackets is silicatisation followed by sandblasting and silane application.

Shear Bond Strength and Bracket Base Morphology of New and Rebonded Orthodontic Ceramic Brackets

The objectives of this study were to (1) to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of two ceramic brackets when new and when rebonded following various bracket base conditioning methods, and (2) to determine bond failure mode relative to bracket base morphology. 100 Symetri Clear^TM (SC) and 100 Radiance Plus^® (RP) ceramic brackets were bonded to bovine incisors and divided into five groups: one group served as controls and four had brackets rebonded following conditioning by: no surface treatment, sealant, sandblasting, and flame then steam. SBS, adhesive remnant index, and bracket base morphology were evaluated. SBS showed no statistical difference between new and rebonded with no surface treatment or sealant (SC brackets) and with sealant or flame and steam (RP brackets). When comparing SC to RP, SBS was higher with SC, no surface treatment, and sandblasted groups. All groups had varying amounts of adhesive left on the tooth, with the sandblasted group having the most. SEM analysis showed that sandblasting damaged the retention features of bracket bases. In conclusion, when rebonded, the SBS of SC brackets that had no surface treatment and both SC and RP brackets that had sealant showed no significant differences to new brackets. Sandblasting damaged the retention features of SC and RP bracket bases, resulting in low SBS.

Comparison of tensile bond strength of new and rebonded Symetri Clear™ ceramic brackets with Transbond™ XT or BluGloo™, with or without surface treatment: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the bond strength of the Symetri Clear™ bracket after rebonding (reused) for a second and third time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Symetri Clear™ mandibular incisor brackets were bonded to bovine incisors and divided into six experimental groups. Two groups underwent tensile bond strength testing, and the remaining four groups were debonded using the manufacturer's recommended plier. Two groups were rebonded twice following surface preparation with Ortho SoloTM and two groups were rebonded twice without surface preparation. The rebonded brackets also underwent tensile bond strength testing after each rebonding event as well as receiving an Adhesive Remnant Index score.

RESULTS

One-way ANOVA found a statistically significant difference in bond strength among the six groups (P<0.0001). Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD, honestly significant difference) Test found significant differences in tensile bond strength of groups which did not undergo surface preparation prior to rebonding. One-way ANOVA found a P-value of 0.2563 and thus no significant difference in ARI among the different groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the tensile bond strength of Symetri ClearTM brackets initially bonded with either Transbond™ XT or BluGloo™ and no significant difference between the initial tensile bond strength and the first or second rebond tensile bond strength. Rebonding Symetri Clear™ brackets without surface treatment did show significantly reduced tensile bond strength.

Effect of different surface treatments for ceramic bracket base on bond strength of rebonded brackets

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.

Analysis of Shear Bond Strength and Morphology of Er:YAG Laser-Recycled Ceramic Orthodontic 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.

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

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of heat treatment on the tribochemical silica coating and silane surface conditioning and the bond strength of rebonded alumina monocrystalline brackets.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty alumina monocrystalline brackets were randomly divided according to adhesive base surface treatments (n=20): Gc, no treatment (control); Gt, tribochemical silica coating + silane application; Gh, as per Gt + post-heat treatment (air flux at 100ºC for 60 s). Brackets were bonded to the enamel premolars surface with a light-polymerized resin and stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 100 days. Additionally, half the specimens of each group were thermocycled (6,000 cycles between 5-55ºC) (TC). The specimens were submitted to the shear bond strength (SBS) test using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure mode was assessed using optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), together with the surface roughness (Ra) of the resin cement in the bracket using interference microscopy (IM). 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey test were used to compare the data (p>0.05).

RESULTS

The strategies used to treat the bracket surface had an effect on the SBS results (p=0.0), but thermocycling did not (p=0.6974). Considering the SBS results (MPa), Gh-TC and Gc showed the highest values (27.59±6.4 and 27.18±2.9) and Gt-TC showed the lowest (8.45±6.7). For the Ra parameter, ANOVA revealed that the aging method had an effect (p=0.0157) but the surface treatments did not (p=0.458). For the thermocycled and non-thermocycled groups, Ra (µm) was 0.69±0.16 and 1.12±0.52, respectively. The most frequent failure mode exhibited was mixed failure involving the enamel-resin-bracket interfaces.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the aging method, Gh promoted similar SBS results to Gc, suggesting that rebonded ceramic brackets are a more effective strategy.

Effects of silica coating and silane surface conditioning on the bond strength of rebonded metal and ceramic brackets

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of tribochemical silica coating and silane surface conditioning on the bond strength of rebonded metal and ceramic brackets.

Material and Methods

Twenty debonded metal and 20 debonded ceramic brackets were randomly assigned to receive one of the following surface treatments (n=10 for each group): (1) sandblasting (control); (2) tribochemical silica coating combined with silane. Brackets were rebonded to the enamel surface on the labial and lingual sides of premolars with a light-polymerized resin composite. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 1 week and then thermocycled (5,000 cycles) between 5-55°C. Shear bond strength values were measured using a universal testing machine. Student's t-test was used to compare the data (α=0.05). Failure mode was assessed using a stereomicroscope, and the treated and non-treated bracket surfaces were observed by scanning electron microscopy.

Results

Rebonded ceramic brackets treated with silica coating followed by silanization had significantly greater bond strength values (17.7±4.4 MPa) than the sandblasting group (2.4±0.8 MPa, P<0.001). No significant difference was observed between the rebonded metal brackets treated with silica coating with silanization (15±3.9 MPa) and the sandblasted brackets (13.6±3.9 MPa). Treated rebonded ceramic specimens primarily exhibited cohesive failure in resin and adhesive failure at the enamel-adhesive interface.

Conclusions

In comparison to sandblasting, silica coating with aluminum trioxide particles followed by silanization resulted in higher bond strengths of rebonded ceramic brackets.