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

An in vitro study of orthodontic brackets bonded to transition dental zirconia: Shear bond strength, adhesive remnant index, and surface irregularities

PURPOSE

Orthodontic treatment often involves bonding brackets to teeth, and the protocols for natural enamel differ from those for prosthodontically restored teeth. With the rising number of adult orthodontic patients, many present with zirconia crowns. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to transition dental zirconia, which combines 3Y-TZP and 5Y-TZP powders.

METHODS

Ninety zirconia substrates were divided into three groups (n=30) based on transition zirconia brands (3M ESPE Lava™ Plus, Cercon® ht ML, and Katana™ Zirconia UTML) and bonded with ceramic brackets (CHIC Ceramic Roth Maxillary and Symetri Clear) using 3M™ Transbond™ XT. A control group used traditional zirconia and metal brackets. Surface treatments included 50-micron aluminium oxide abrasion and Z-Prime™ Plus application. SBS was tested post-thermocycling. Adhesive Resin Index (ARI) was scored and surface roughness was evaluated pre- and post-bonding.

RESULTS

Group 1 (3M ESPE Lava™ Plus with CHIC Ceramic Roth Maxillary brackets) had a significantly lower SBS (mean 13.27MPa) compared to the other groups, which all had SBS values above 18.80MPa (P≤.023). Group 2 (3M ESPE Lava™ Plus with Symetri™ Clear) demonstrated a significantly higher mean ARI compared to the control group (Cercon® XT with Victory Series™ Roth), (P=.027). Additionally, significant changes in surface roughness were observed in Groups B (Cercon® ht ML) (P=.008) and C (Katana™ Zirconia UTML) (P=.016).

CONCLUSION

This study determined that the shear bond strength of various transitional zirconia substrates with ceramic brackets exceeded the clinically acceptable SBS levels. The combination of 3M ESPE Lava™ Plus and Symetri™ Clear exhibited significant variation in ARI. Additionally, significant surface irregularities were observed in 3M ESPE Lava™ Plus and Cercon® ht ML following air abrasion, compared to other transitional zirconia brands.

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.

Effects of Plasma Treatment on the Strength of Bonding to Ceramic Surfaces in Orthodontics-A Comprehensive Review

Over the past several decades, orthodontic treatment has been increasingly sought out by adults, many of whom have undergone restorative dental procedures that cover enamel. Because the characteristics of restorative materials differ from those of enamel, typical bonding techniques do not yield excellent restoration-bracket bonding strengths. Plasma treatment is an emerging surface treatment that could potentially improve bonding properties. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate currently available studies assessing the effect of plasma treatment on the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure mode of resin cement/composite on the surface of ceramic materials. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies, which were categorized by restorative material and plasma treatment types that were evaluated. It was determined that cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) treatment using helium and H2O gas was effective at raising the SBS of feldspathic porcelain to a bonding agent, while CAP treatment using helium gas might also be a potential treatment method for zirconia and other types of ceramics. More importantly, CAP treatment using helium has the potential for being carried out chairside due to its non-toxicity, low temperature, and short treatment time. However, because all the studies were conducted in vitro and not tested in an orthodontic setting, further research must be conducted to ascertain the effectiveness of specific plasma treatments in comparison to current orthodontic bonding treatments in vivo.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to a new version of zirconium all ceramic restoration: An in vitro comparative study

Objectives

Esthetic restorations such as monolithic zirconia crowns are highly requested for adults nowadays. Bonding orthodontic braces on this type of material became a challenge for orthodontists, because of the special surface treatment needed. This study aims to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal, and ceramic brackets bonded on two types of zirconia ceramics, surface roughness (SR) after different surface treatments for their surfaces, and adhesive remnant index (ARI).

Materials and methods

Brackets' base surface area (BSA) was scanned by an extra-oral scanner, then measured. The doubled labial surface of monolithic zirconia crowns (n = 30) and monolithic high translucent zirconia crowns (n = 30) were prepared and each was divided into three groups (n = 10) depending on surface treatment (hydrofluoric acid etching, no treatment, and rocatec airborne abrasion). Extracted lower central incisors (n = 20) were prepared. Each of them was divided into two subgroups depending on the type of bracket bonded on their surfaces (metal and ceramic). The SR, SBS, and ARI were assessed.

Statistical analysis used

Tests used are independent-samples t-test, Fisher's exact test, One-Way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

The highest SBS and SR were observed in Enamel/Metal and Zirconia/Metal/Rocatec subgroups, respectively.

Conclusion

Adequate bond strength could be obtained with the high translucent zirconia group if bonded with ceramic or metal brackets even if no treatment was used.

Clinical significance

A proportion of simulation was done like practicing inside the dental clinic to reach the best results regarding the adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets.

Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to human teeth with and without fluorotic enamel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental in vitro studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to human teeth with and without enamel fluorosis (EF) using conventional bonding interventions/techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An unrestricted search of indexed databases was performed with the following eligibility criteria: (a) human fluorotic teeth (experimental-group); (b) human teeth without fluorosis (control-group); (c) studies using phosphoric acid (PA) etching without air abrasion (AA), PA etching combined with AA, and application of self-etching primer (SEP) alone as bonding interventions/techniques; and (d) measuring SBS in megapascals (MPa). Data screening, selection, and extraction were performed by two reviewers. The risk of bias (rob) was assessed using the JBI Critical appraisal tool for Quasi-Experimental Studies. Meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model. The quality of available evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Ten in vitro studies were included. Subgroup analyses were performed for each intervention type. The SBS was significantly lower in fluorotic teeth when PA was used without AA (mean difference = 3.26 MPa, confidence interval: [1.00, 5.52]); and there were no significant differences for the PA combined with AA, and SEP interventions. All studies had a low rob. The overall level of evidence was at best low.

CONCLUSIONS

The SBS is lower in teeth with EF when traditional PA is used. No significant differences were found in SBS between teeth with and without EF when PA is used with AA or when SEP is used alone.

Effects of Three Novel Bracket Luting Agents Containing Zirconia Primer on Shear Bond Strength of Metal Orthodontic Brackets Attached to Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: A Preliminary In Vitro Study

Background

The increased use of zirconia crowns in adult orthodontic patients warrants the establishment of methods and materials to adhere orthodontic brackets properly to zirconia crowns. However, studies in this regard are scarce, and many materials remain untested. This preliminary study aimed to examine three new adhesives containing zirconia primers for the first time.

Methods

Sixty identical monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated and randomly divided into 4 groups of 15 each (Panavia SA Cement Plus, G-CEM, TheraCem, and Transbond XT Composite (control)). After glaze removal with a diamond bur, a metal orthodontic bracket was attached to the surfaces of the crowns using the respective adhesive. Specimens were incubated at 37°C and then thermocycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of brackets in different groups were estimated using a universal testing machine. Mean SBS values were compared with the values 6, 8, and 10 (as acceptable SBS values) and 13 MPa (as the maximum SBS tolerable by zirconia) using the one-sample t-test. They were also compared with each other using the one-way ANOVA and Tamhane post hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results

The ANOVA indicated a significant overall difference; the Tamhane test showed that the difference between the control group and all test groups was significant (P < 0.0005); however, the 3 test groups were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.30). The SBS of the control group was significantly lower than the minimum acceptable SBS (6 MPa, P < 0.0005). The mean SBS of the TheraCem was not significantly different from 10 MPa (P = 0.902), while the mean SBS values of Panavia SA Cement Plus and G-CEM were significantly greater than 10 MPa (P < 0.05). None of the three zirconia adhesives had mean SBS values higher than 13 MPa.

Conclusion

All novel zirconia adhesives (Panavia SA Cement Plus, G-CEM, and TheraCem) generated SBS values adequate to attach metal orthodontic brackets to zirconia prostheses (at or greater than 10 MPa) without damaging the zirconia during bracket removal (not above 13 MPa).

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 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.

In vitro comparison of shear bond strengths of ceramic orthodontic brackets with ceramic crowns using an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if there are differences between the shear bond strengths of 3 types of ceramic brackets when bonded to different ceramic substrates using an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Substrate groups consisting of thirty-six lithium disilicate (e.max® CAD) samples and thirty-six lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO) samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a left maxillary central incisor. The surface of all samples was prepared with an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant protocol. Each substrate group was split into three test groups (n=12). Each test group was bonded using a different brand of ceramic orthodontic bracket. Shear bond strength (SBS) testing was conducted and the mean SBS values for each group were calculated and recorded in MPa. An Adhesive Resin Index (ARI) score was also assigned to each sample to assess the location of bond failure.

RESULTS

Mean SBS of the e.max® CAD groups were significantly less than the CELTRA® DUO groups. Symetri brackets showed significantly higher shear bond strengths to both substrates than both of the other brackets tested. ARI scores of the e.max® CAD groups were significantly less than the CELTRA® DUO groups.

CONCLUSION

The Symetri bracket was the only bracket that was effective for both substrates (mean SBS>6mPa). The Etch Master protocol does not appear effective for e.max® CAD.