Shear bond strengths of two resin-modified glass ionomer cements to porcelain

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.

Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatment and Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets

Objective

This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of metal brackets to machinable ceramics and veneering porcelain using different adhesive resins. Materials and methods. Machined ceramic specimens (10 × 10 × 2 mm) were prepared from Vitablocs mark II (Vita) and IPS e.max® CAD (Ivoclar). Layered porcelain fused to metal (IPS d.Sign®, Ivoclar) was used to fabricate PFM specimens (n = 60/group). Half of specimens were etched (9.6% HF, 15 sec), and the rest were nonetched. Three resin bonding systems were used for attaching metal brackets (Victory series™ APC II, 3M) to each group (n = 10): Transbond™ XT (3M), Light Bond™ (Reliance), or Blugloo™ (Ormco), all cured with LED curing unit (Bluephase G1600, Vivadent) for 50 s each. Specimens were immersed in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours prior to shear bond testing (Instron) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Debond surface of ceramic and bracket base was examined for failure mode (FM), Ceramic Damage Index (CDI), and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparisons were used to analyze the differences in bond strength. The chi-squared test was used to determine significance effect of FM, CDI, and ARI.

Results

Significant differences in shear bond strength among group were found (p ≤ 0.05) related to ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement.

Conclusion

Bond strength of bracket to ceramic is affected by type of ceramic, resin cement, and ceramic surface conditioning. Etching ceramic surface enhanced ceramic-bracket bond strength. However, bond strengths in nontreated ceramic surface groups were still higher than bond strength required for bonding in orthodontic treatment.

Recent refinements to cranial implants for rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

The advent of cranial implants revolutionized primate neurophysiological research because they allow researchers to stably record neural activity from monkeys during active behavior. Cranial implants have improved over the years since their introduction, but chronic implants still increase the risk for medical complications including bacterial contamination and resultant infection, chronic inflammation, bone and tissue loss and complications related to the use of dental acrylic. These complications can lead to implant failure and early termination of study protocols. In an effort to reduce complications, we describe several refinements that have helped us improve cranial implants and the wellbeing of implanted primates.

Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to porcelain surface: in vitro study

Purpose:

To compare the effects of different porcelain surface treatment methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) and fracture mode of orthodontic brackets.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy feldspathic porcelain disk samples mounted in acrylic resin blocks were divided into seven groups (n=10) according to type of surface treatment: I, Diamond bur; II, Orthosphoric acid (OPA); III, hydrofluoric acid (HFA); IV, sandblasted with aluminum oxide (SB); V, SB+HFA; VI, Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; VII, Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser. Brackets were affixed to treated all-porcelain surfaces with a silane bonding agent and adhesive resin and subjected to SBS testing. Specimens were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI), and failure modes were assessed quantitatively under a stereomicroscope and morphologically under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and the post-hoc Tukey test, with the significance level set at 0.05.

Results:

The highest SBS values were observed for Group V, with no significant difference between Groups V and III. SBS values for Group I were significantly lower than those of all other groups tested. The porcelain/resin interface was the most common site of failure in Group V (40%) and Group III (30%), whereas other groups showed various types of bond failure, with no specific location pre-dominating, but with some of the adhesive left on the porcelain surfaces (ARI scores 2 or 3) in most cases.

Conclusion:

The current findings indicate that a diamond bur alone is unable to sufficiently etch porcelain surfaces for bracket bonding. Moreover, SB and HFA etching used in combination results in a significantly higher shear-bond strength than HFA or SB alone. Finally, laser etching with either an Nd:YAG or Er:YAG laser was found to be more effective and less time-consuming than both HFA acid and SB for the treatment of deglazed feldspathic porcelain.

Four chemical methods of porcelain conditioning and their influence over bond strength and surface integrity

OBJECTIVE:

To assess four different chemical surface conditioning methods for ceramic material before bracket bonding, and their impact on shear bond strength and surface integrity at debonding.

METHODS:

Four experimental groups (n = 13) were set up according to the ceramic conditioning method: G1 = 37% phosphoric acid etching followed by silane application; G2 = 37% liquid phosphoric acid etching, no rinsing, followed by silane application; G3 = 10% hydrofluoric acid etching alone; and G4 = 10% hydrofluoric acid etching followed by silane application. After surface conditioning, metal brackets were bonded to porcelain by means of the Transbond XP system (3M Unitek). Samples were submitted to shear bond strength tests in a universal testing machine and the surfaces were later assessed with a microscope under 8 X magnification. ANOVA/Tukey tests were performed to establish the difference between groups (α= 5%).

RESULTS:

The highest shear bond strength values were found in groups G3 and G4 (22.01 ± 2.15 MPa and 22.83 ± 3.32 Mpa, respectively), followed by G1 (16.42 ± 3.61 MPa) and G2 (9.29 ± 1.95 MPa). As regards surface evaluation after bracket debonding, the use of liquid phosphoric acid followed by silane application (G2) produced the least damage to porcelain. When hydrofluoric acid and silane were applied, the risk of ceramic fracture increased.

CONCLUSIONS:

Acceptable levels of bond strength for clinical use were reached by all methods tested; however, liquid phosphoric acid etching followed by silane application (G2) resulted in the least damage to the ceramic surface.

Extrusion shear strength between an alumina-based ceramic and three different cements

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Surface treatment is an essential step in bonding a ceramic to resin. Alumina ceramics are particularly difficult to prepare for adequate bonding to composite resin cements.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength between a densely sintered alumina ceramic and bovine dentin with 2 adhesive resin cements and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement using an extrusion shear strength test.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Alumina cones (n=30), 4 mm in height, 3 mm in diameter at the small end, and with an 8-degree taper, were fabricated. Without any treatment, the cones were cemented in a standardized cavity in 2.5-mm-thick bovine dentin discs using 1 of 3 cement systems: Panavia F, RelyX ARC, or RelyX Luting. The cements were manipulated following the manufacturers' instructions. After 24 hours of storage at 37 degrees C, an extrusion shear test was performed in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min until bonding failure. The data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (alpha=.05). All fractured specimens were examined at x25 magnification and classified by fracture mode. Representative specimens were selected for SEM observation.

RESULTS

The highest strength values were obtained with Panavia F, and they were significantly higher (P<.05) than each of the other 2 cements, which were not significantly different from each other. Panavia F resulted in predominantly mixed failure and RelyX ARC and RelyX Vitremer showed primarily adhesive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

An MDP-containing adhesive system (Panavia F) provides better extrusion bond strength to a high-density alumina ceramic than a Bis-GMA resin luting agent system (RelyX ARC) or a resin-modified glass ionomer cement system (RelyX Luting).

Orthodontic bonding to several ceramic surfaces: are there acceptable alternatives to conventional methods?

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of various surface conditioning methods on 3 types of ceramic materials (feldsphatic, leucite-based, and lithia disilicate-based) in orthodontic bonding.

METHODS

A total of 210 ceramic disk samples were fabricated and divided into 3 groups. In each group, 5 subgroups were prepared by sandblasting; sandblasting and hydrofluoric (HF) acid; sandblasting and silane; sandblasting, HF acid, and silane; and tribochemical silica coating and silane. Mandibular incisor brackets were bonded with light-cured adhesive. The samples were stored in water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C and then thermocycled. Shear bond tests were performed, and the failure types were classified with adhesive remnant index scores.

RESULTS

In all 3 ceramic groups, the lowest shear bond strength values were found in the sandblasted-only samples. For the feldspathic and lithia disilicate-based ceramic, the highest bond strength values were obtained with silica coating (15.2 and 13.2 MPa, respectively). For the leucite-based ceramic, HF without silane produced the highest bond strength value (14.7 MPa), but comparable values were obtained with silicatization also (13.4 MPa).

CONCLUSIONS

The silica-coating technique could replace the other conditioning techniques in bonding brackets to ceramic. However, debonding must be done carefully because of the risk of porcelain fracture.

Effects of surface conditioning on bond strength of metal brackets to all-ceramic surfaces

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of bonding brackets to ceramic restorations. Sixty feldspathic and 60 lithium disilicate ceramic specimens were randomly divided into six groups. Shear bond strength (SBS) and bond failure types were examined with six surface-conditioning methods: silane application to glazed surface, air particle abrasion (APA) with 25- and 50-microm aluminium trioxide (Al(2)O(3)), etching with 9.6 per cent hydrofluoric acid (HFA), and roughening with 40- and 63-microm diamond burs. Silane was applied to all roughened surfaces. Metal brackets were bonded with light cure composite, then stored in distilled water for 1 week and thermocycled (x500 at 5-55 degrees C for 30 seconds). The ceramic surfaces were examined with a stereomicroscope at a magnification of x10 to determine the amount of composite resin remaining using the adhesive remnant index. The lowest SBS values were obtained with HFA for feldspathic (5.39 MPa) and lithium disilicate (11.11 MPa) ceramics; these values were significantly different from those of the other groups. The highest SBS values were found with 63-microm diamond burs for feldspathic (26.38 MPa) and lithium disilicate (28.20 MPa) ceramics, and were not significantly different from 40-microm diamond burs for feldspathic and lithium disilicate ceramics (26.04 and 24.26 MPa, respectively). Roughening with 25- and 50-microm Al(2)O(3) particles showed modest SBS for lithium disilicate (22.60 and 26.15 MPa, respectively) and for feldspathic ceramics (17.90 and 14.66 MPa, respectively). Adhesive failures between the ceramic and composite resin were noted in all groups. Damage to the porcelain surfaces was not observed. The SBS values were above the optimal range, except for feldspathic ceramic treated with HFA and silane. With all surface-conditioning methods, lithium disilicate ceramic displayed higher SBS than feldspathic ceramic.

Bonding polycarbonate brackets to ceramic: effects of substrate treatment on bond strength

This study evaluated the effects of 5 different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of polycarbonate brackets bonded to ceramic surfaces with resin based cement. Six disc-shaped ceramic specimens (feldspathic porcelain) with glazed surfaces were used for each group. The specimens were randomly assigned to 1 of the following treatment conditions of the ceramic surface: (1) orthophosphoric acid + primer + bonding agent, (2) hydrofluoric acid gel + primer + bonding agent, (3) tribochemical silica coating (silicon dioxide, 30microm) + silane, (4) airborne particle abrasion (aluminum trioxide, 30microm) + silane, and (5) airborne particle abrasion (aluminum trioxide, 30microm) + silane + bonding agent. Brackets were bonded to the conditioned ceramic specimens with a light-polymerized resin composite. All specimens were stored in water for 1 week at 37 degrees C and then thermocycled (1000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 30 seconds). The shear bond strength values were measured on a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Brackets treated with silica coating with silanization had significantly greater bond strength values (13.6 MPa, P =.01) than brackets treated with orthophosphoric acid (8.5 MPa). There was no significant difference (P =.97) between the bond strengths obtained after airborne abrasion with aluminium trioxide particles followed by silanization (12 MPa) and hydrofluoric acid application (11.2 MPa) (ANOVA and Tukey test). Although brackets conditioned with orthophosphoric acid exhibited only adhesive failures of the luting cement from the ceramic surface, other conditioning methods showed mixed types of failures. Airborne particle abrasion with aluminium trioxide or silica coating followed by silanization gave the most favorable bond strengths. The types of failures observed after debonding indicated that the critical parameter was the strength of the adhesive joint of the luting cement to both the bracket and the ceramic.

Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature

Current ceramic materials offer preferred optical properties for highly esthetic restorations. The inherent brittleness of some ceramic materials, specific treatment modalities, and certain clinical situations require resin bonding of the completed ceramic restoration to the supporting tooth structures for long-term clinical success. This article presents a literature review on the resin bond to dental ceramics. A PubMed database search was conducted for in vitro studies pertaining to the resin bond to ceramic materials. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1966 and 2001. Although the resin bond to silica-based ceramics is well researched and documented, few in vitro studies on the resin bond to high-strength ceramic materials were identified. Available data suggest that resin bonding to these materials is less predictable and requires substantially different bonding methods than to silica-based ceramics. Further in vitro studies, as well as controlled clinical trials, are needed.

Bonding brackets to porcelain--in vitro study

The aim of this research was to verify, in vitro, the effect of various porcelain surface treatment on the shear strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain and the mode of fracture after debonding. Eighty-eight samples of metallic supported feldspathic porcelain were randomly divided into four groups according to their surface preparation as follows: the porcelain was maintained intact (GI), roughened with a diamond bur (GII), etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid (GIII), or sandblasted with aluminum oxide (GIV). The specimens were treated with silane (Scotchprime) and brackets were bonded with Concise. Each sample was subjected to a shear load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min and a recording was made at the point of failure. Bond strengths, adequate to withstand the application of orthodontic forces, were achieved in all groups. The Kruskal-Wallis statistical test showed no significant differences in bond strength between the groups (p > 0.05). However, many more porcelain fractures occurred on deglazed porcelain. This study indicates that with the appropriate material selection, the silane/composite procedure alone may be adequate for bonding.

Orthodontic bonding to porcelain: a comparison of bonding systems

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces has been plagued by failure.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the bond strengths of several different bonding systems when bonding orthodontic brackets to porcelain-fused-to-metal surfaces.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty natural glazed feldspathic porcelain-fused-to-noble metal disks 6 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height (1 mm metal and 2 mm porcelain) were fabricated and divided into 5 groups of 10. A different bonding system (GC America Fuji LC, American Ortho Spectrum, 3M Transbond, TP Orthodontics Python, and Kerr Herculite) was assigned to each group, and 50 identical orthodontic brackets were bonded (with the above mentioned systems) to each disk according to each manufacturer's instructions. Each system except TP Orthodontics Python conditioned with phosphoric acid (35% to 37.5%) and all systems were primed with silane before bonding. The specimens were subjected to gradual shear forces up to 123 N in a universal testing machine (Instron Corp, Canton, Mass.) until fracture. The shear bond strength of the bonding systems between the porcelain surface and the bracket was measured in megapascals (MPa). Failures were observed via a Zeiss optical microscope (10x); Tukey's HSD Test and analysis of variance were used to determine significance between the bonding systems at P<.05 level of significance.

RESULTS

Failure of all of specimens was adhesive between the porcelain surface and the bonding agents. On the basis of a current literature review, bonding systems were categorized as clinically acceptable if they had a shear bond strength of 6 to 8 MPa. The 3M Transbond Bonding System, American Orthodontics Spectrum Bonding System, and GC America Fuji Ortho LC Bonding System performed within this clinically acceptable range (6 to 8 MPa), whereas Kerr Herculite Bonding System and TP Orthodontics Python Bonding System did not (2 to 4 MPa). The bond strengths of GC America Fuji Ortho LC, 3M Transbond, and American Orthodontics Spectrum were significantly greater (mean = 2.3 times) than TP Orthodontics Python or Kerr Herculite bonding systems.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the results reaffirm the regimen of conditioning with phosphoric acid and priming with silane before bonding orthodontic brackets to feldspathic porcelain fused to noble metal. All products indicated for this purpose may not achieve satisfactory bond strengths; however, because they do not all include the critical steps of conditioning with phosphoric acid and priming with silane. The 3M Transbond Bonding System, American Orthodontics Spectrum Bonding System, and GC America Fuji Ortho LC Bonding System performed within the clinically acceptable range (6 to 8 MPa), whereas Kerr Herculite Bonding System and TP Orthodontics Python Bonding System did not (2 to 4 MPa).

Shear bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Twenty new and 100 sandblasted rebonded ceramic brackets (Clarity, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded to 120 extracted human premolars with composite resin and divided into 6 equal groups according to how the bracket bases were treated: (1) new brackets, (2) rebonded/sandblasted, (3) rebonded/sandblasted/sealant, (4) rebonded/sandblasted/hydrofluoric acid (HF), (5) rebonded/sandblasted/HF/sealant on bracket base, and (6) rebonded/sandblasted/silane. Shear bond strength of each sample was tested with a testing machine. Results showed that the new brackets group had the highest mean strength (15.66 +/- 7.05 megapascals [MPa]), followed by the rebonded/sandblasted/sealant group (7.65 +/- 5.62 MPa), the rebonded/sandblasted/silane group (5.94 +/- 5.33 MPa), the rebonded/sandblasted group (2.97 +/- 2.29 MPa), the rebonded/sandblasted/HF group (1.22 +/- 1.66 MPa), and the rebonded/sandblasted/HF/sealant group (0.82 +/- 1.16 MPa). Statistical analysis showed that only the rebonded/sandblasted/sealant group was comparable with the new brackets group in bond strength (P >.05). It was concluded that in the process of rebonding mechanically retentive ceramic brackets, (1) new brackets have the highest mean bond strength when compared with rebonded brackets, (2) the bond strength of sandblasted rebonded brackets with sealant is not significantly different from new brackets, (3) silane does not increase bond strength of rebonded brackets significantly, and (4) HF treatment on sandblasted rebonded brackets significantly decreases bond strength.