Lithium di silicate ceramic surface treated with Er,Cr:YSGG and other conditioning regimes bonded to orthodontic bracket

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.

Bonding of Clear Aligner Composite Attachments to Ceramic Materials: An In Vitro Study

Background: We aim to evaluate the effect of surface conditioning, bonding agents and composite types on surface roughness (SR) and shear bond strength (SBS) of clear aligner composite attachments bonded to ceramics. Methods: One hundred and eighty IPS e.max CAD specimens were prepared. For SR, 60 specimens were divided according to surface conditioning (n = 15) into four groups: control, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HFA), 37% phosphoric acid (PhA), air abrasion (AA). SR was measured using a Profilometer and Atomic Force Microscopy. For SBS, 120 specimens were divided according to conditioning methods (n = 40) (9.6% HFA and 37% PhA or AA), then according to bonding agents (n = 20) (Assure universal bond (AUB) or Single bond universal (SBU)) and then according to composite type (n = 10): Filtek™ Z350 and Filtek™ Z350 XT flowable composite. SBS was measured using Instron testing machine. Descriptive and group comparison were calculated (p < 0.05). Results: AA had the highest SR, while the control had the lowest SR (p < 0.05). HFA had the highest, but insignificant SBS, followed by AA (p > 0.05). AUB had higher SBS than SBU (p < 0.001). Filtek™ Z350 produced higher SBS than Filtek™ Z350 XT flowable composite (p < 0.01). Conclusion: The combination of AA, AUB, and Filtek Z350 produced the highest SBS, followed by HFA, AUB, and Filtek Z350.

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: 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.