Effect of different temporary crown materials and surface roughening methods on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets

The effect of surface treatment and thermal aging on the bonding of clear aligner attachments to provisional resin-based material: shear bond strength analysis

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of clear aligner attachments bonded to Bis-acryl provisional crowns.

Methods

120 cylindrical bisacrylic composite material (ProTemp type) specimens were prepared and divided into six groups (n = 20) based on surface treatment, control: (no treatment); super coarse grit diamond bur, carbide bur, alumina-blasting, non-thermal plasma treatment, and Er:YAG laser treatment. The features of treated surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A flowable composite resin (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek) was bonded to the specimens forming the attachment. Half of specimens were subjected to thermal cycling (5,000 cycles). SBS was measured before and after thermal cycling. Each specimen was loaded at the attachment/resin interface at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure. The nature of the failure was analyzed using the composite remnants index (CRI). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD were used for data analysis α =  0.5. For CRI scores analysis, Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's multiple comparison were used as post-hoc test.

Results

SEM analysis showed that all surface treatments altered surface properties and increase surface bonding area. The specimens treated with plasma, Er:YAG laser, and alumina-blasting had higher SBS values before and after thermal cycling. In comparison to control plasma, Er:YAG laser, and alumina-blasting showed a significant increase in SBS (P < 0.001) while carbide and diamond bur groups showed no significant differences (P > 0.05). Thermal cycling significantly decreased the SBS of control, carbide bur, diamond bur, and Er:YAG laser while no significant effect of alumina-blasting and plasma group. Er:YAG laser and plasma groups significantly exhibited more dominance for scores 2 and score 3 and the absence of score 0.

Conclusion

Alumina-blasting, Er:YAG laser, or non-thermal plasma surface treatments increased the shear bond strength between clear aligner attachments and resin-based restorations.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to specimens fabricated from temporary restorative materials by 3D-printing, CAD/CAM technology, and the conventional technique after surface treatment by sandblasting and laser

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the shear bond strength (SBS) of stainless steel (SS) orthodontic brackets to specimens fabricated from polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) temporary restorative material by 3D-printing, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology, and the conventional technique, after surface treatment by sandblasting and laser.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this in vitro study, 60 disc-shaped specimens with 8mm diameter and 1mm height were fabricated from PMMA temporary restorative material by 3D-printing, CAD/CAM, and the conventional technique. In each group (n=20), half of the specimens were sandblasted while the other half underwent Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation. Brackets were bonded to the specimens and underwent thermocycling followed by SBS testing. Data were analysed by one-way ANOVA, independent t-test, and LSD test (alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

A significant difference existed among the three fabrication methods in SBS in both laser (P<0.001) and sandblasting (P<0.001) surface treatment groups. In laser group, the mean SBS of CAD/CAM (P=0.000) and conventional (P=0.000) groups was significantly lower than that of 3D-printing group. In sandblasting group, the SBS of CAD/CAM group was significantly lower than 3D-printing (P=0.000) and conventional (P=0.000) groups. The mean SBS of laser-treated specimens was significantly higher than sandblasted specimens in 3D-printing group (P=0.000), and significantly lower than sandblasted specimens in the conventional group (P=0.000). A significantly higher SBS was obtained by laser treatment compared with sandblasting irrespective of the fabrication method (P=0.000).

CONCLUSION

The highest SBS of SS orthodontic brackets to temporary restorative material was recorded for 3D-printed specimens treated by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation.

Influence of different surface treatment on bonding of metal and ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials

BACKGROUND

Developing efficient bonding techniques for orthodontic brackets and all-ceramic materials continues to pose a clinical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strengths (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets to various all-ceramic CAD-CAM materials, such as lithium disilicate CAD (LDS-CAD), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS), and 5YTZP zirconia after different surface treatments and thermal cycling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The samples were divided into two groups to be bonded with ceramic and metal lower incisor brackets. Each group was subdivided into a control group devoid of any surface treatment, 10% HF acid (HFA) etching, ceramic etch & prime (MEP), Al2O3 air abrasion, and medium grit diamond bur roughening. After surface treatment, brackets were bonded with composite resin cement, thermal cycled, and tested for shear bond strength. The failed surfaces were evaluated with a digital microscope to analyse the type of failure. The data were statistically analysed using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The highest mean bond strengths were found with HFA etching in LDS-CAD (13.17 ± 0.26 MPa) and ZLS (12.85 0.52 MPa). Diamond bur recorded the lowest mean bond strength roughening across all the ceramic groups. There were significant differences in mean shear bond values per surface treatment (p < 0.001) and ceramic materials.

CONCLUSION

Among the surface treatment protocols evaluated, HFA etching and MEP surface treatment resulted in enhanced bond strength of both ceramic and metal brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials.

Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Temporary Crowns: In vitro Effects of Surface Treatment

Background

To evaluate bond strength of orthodontic brackets to temporary crowns.

Materials and Methods

A bis-acrylic composite was used to create a total of 25 discs, which were then divided into five groups based on how their surfaces were treated with black, blue, green, and sandblasted diamond burs, in addition to a control group. Software called SPSS was used to analyze the outcome.

Results

The average pressures measured for the green bur, black bur, and sandblasting, respectively, were 12.05 MPa, 12.87 MPa, and 19.25 MPa. Comparing the control and blue groups, a substantial variation in shear bond strength was only noticed with reference to sandblasting.

Conclusion

The binding strength of orthodontic brackets is increased by sandblasting temporary crowns.

Effect of Different Types of Adhesive Agents on Orthodontic Bracket Shear Bond Strength: A Cyclic Loading Study

Bracket failure is one of the most important problems encountered during fixed orthodontic treatment. For this reason, different types of adhesive agents have been developed over the years. Consequently, the aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets bonded to teeth etched with a conventional acid etching method in a laboratory environment by using different types of adhesive agents and comparing the number of shear strokes. Sixty human maxillary premolars were divided into three groups and Gemini stainless steel metal brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) were bonded to all teeth. In Group 1, Transbond™ XT Primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and Transbond™ XT Light Cure Adhesive Paste composite (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) were used. In Group 2, BracePaste® MTP Primer (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, CA, USA) and BracePaste® Adhesive composite (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) were used. In Group 3, Ortho Solo™ Primer (Ormco, Orange, CA, USA) and Grengloo™ Adhesive composite (Ormco, Brea, CA, USA) were used. The samples were subjected to a shear test with a closed-loop controlled, low-cycle fatigue machine with a capacity of 10 N and a crosshead speed of 300 mm/min. The number of shear strokes of the brackets was recorded. According to the Kruskal−Wallis and Mann−Whitney U tests performed on the data obtained, statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of the numbers of shear strokes (p < 0.05). Significantly higher numbers of shear strokes and higher shear bond strengths were observed in Group 3 compared with Group 1 and Group 2 (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the numbers of shear strokes for Group 1 and Group 2 samples (p > 0.05). To conclude the study, it was observed that the type of adhesive used had an effect on the bond strength of the bracket and that the Grengloo™ adhesive agent showed higher shear bond strength. It was observed that BracePaste® Adhesive and Transbond™ XT Light Cure Adhesive Paste adhesive agents had similar shear bond strengths.

Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic stainless-steel brackets on temporary crowns fabricated by three different methods: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Different methods are available for making temporary restorations. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets on temporary crowns made by three different methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this experimental study, disc form samples (N=54) were made in dimensions 8×1mm, according to the manufacturer's instructions. In this study, we had three groups (N=18) based on manufacturing methods (3D printing, conventional, and CAD/CAM). Following surface preparation of the samples, the brackets were bonded in the centre of the discs. Before the shear bond strength test, the samples were subjected to the thermocycling process. The shear bond strength of brackets was measured by Universal Testing Machine. Data were analysed by one-way ANOVA and LSD post hoc test.

RESULTS

The findings indicated that the mean shear bond strength of orthodontic stainless-steel brackets on temporary crowns varied between CAD/CAM and 3D printing methods (P<0.001) and also between CAD/CAM and conventional methods (P<0.001). The mean shear bond strength of orthodontic stainless steel brackets on temporary crowns was not different between 3D printing and conventional methods (P=0.7).

CONCLUSION

The shear bond strength of orthodontic stainless-steel brackets bonded to temporary crowns fabricated by conventional and 3D printing methods was similar, and the shear bond strength in the samples fabricated by CAD/CAM method was lower than other specimens.

Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Temporary Crowns: In Vitro Effects of Surface Treatment

Background

The number of patients seeking orthodontic treatment has been consistently increasing. During orthodontic treatment, it is recommended to place the provisional restoration and to delay the final restoration until completion of orthodontic treatment. Recurrent bracket debonding necessitates orthodontists to prepare the bonding area with special measures.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different grit sizes of diamond burs and sandblasting surface treatment on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to provisional crowns.

Materials and Methods

A total of 75 discs were fabricated from a bisacrylic composite and divided into 5 groups (n = 15) according to surface treatment by black, blue, and green diamond burs and sandblasting in addition to a control group. Metal orthodontic brackets were bonded to discs in a standardized conventional manner. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling with 5000 cycles of alternating 5°C and 55°C waterbaths. The shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to analyze the surface treatment effect and features of debonded surfaces. The amount of composite resin left on the specimen surfaces was analyzed and classified with the adhesive remnant index. One-way ANOVA was performed at α = 0.05.

Results

The shear bond strength of specimens treated with sandblasting was significantly higher than that of the control group under thermal aging conditions (p=0.022), as well as blue burs (p=0.001), while no significant differences were found between different grit diamond burs and the controls (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Under thermocycling conditions, sandblasting of provisional crowns increases the bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

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.

Bracket bonding to polymethylmethacrylate-based materials for computer-aided design/manufacture of temporary restorations: Influence of mechanical treatment and chemical treatment with universal adhesives

Objective

To assess shear bond strength and failure mode (Adhesive Remnant Index, ARI) of orthodontic brackets bonded to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) blocks for computer-aided design/manufacture (CAD/CAM) fabrication of temporary restorations, following substrate chemical or mechanical treatment.

Methods

Two types of PMMA blocks were tested: CAD-Temp® (VITA) and Telio® CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent). The substrate was roughened with 320-grit sandpaper, simulating a fine-grit diamond bur. Two universal adhesives, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU) and Assure Plus (AP), and a conventional adhesive, Transbond XT Primer (XTP; control), were used in combination with Transbond XT Paste to bond the brackets. Six experimental groups were formed: (1) CADTemp®/SU; (2) CAD-Temp®/AP; (3) CAD-Temp®/XTP; (4) Telio® CAD/SU; (5) Telio® CAD/AP; (6) Telio® CAD/XTP. Shear bond strength and ARI were assessed. On 1 extra block for each PMMA-based material surfaces were roughened with 180-grit sandpaper, simulating a normal/medium-grit (100 mm) diamond bur, and brackets were bonded. Shear bond strengths and ARI scores were compared with those of groups 3, 6.

Results

On CAD-Temp® significantly higher bracket bond strengths than on Telio® CAD were recorded. With XTP significantly lower levels of adhesion were reached than using SU or AP. Roughening with a coarser bur resulted in a significant increase in adhesion.

Conclusions

Bracket bonding to CAD/CAM PMMA can be promoted by grinding the substrate with a normal/medium-grit bur or by coating the intact surface with universal adhesives. With appropriate pretreatments, bracket adhesion to CAD/CAM PMMA temporary restorations can be enhanced to clinically satisfactory levels.

Effect of surface treatment of prefabricated teeth on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Objective:

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effects of grinding, drilling, sandblasting, and ageing prefabricated teeth (PfT) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets, as well as the effects of surface treatments on the adhesive remnant index (ARI).

Methods:

One-hundred-ninety-two PfT were divided into four groups (n = 48): Group 1, no surface treatment was done; Group 2, grinding was performed with a cylindrical diamond bur; Group 3, two drillings were done with a spherical diamond bur; Group 4, sandblasting was performed with 50-µm aluminum oxide. Before the experiment, half of the samples stayed immersed in distilled water at 37^oC for 90 days. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and shear strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine. SBS were compared by surface treatment and by ageing with two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. ARI scores were compared between surface treatments with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test.

Results:

Surface treatments on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets (p< 0.01), result not observed with ageing (p= 0.45). Groups II, III, and IV showed higher SBS and greater ARI than the Group 1 (p< 0.05). SBS was greater in the groups 3 and 4 (drilling, sandblasting) than in the Group 2 (grinding) (p< 0.05). SBS and ARI showed a positive correlation (Spearman’s R²= 0.57; p< 0.05).

Conclusion:

Surface treatment on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets, however ageing did not show any relevance. Sandblasting and drilling showed greater SBS than grinding. There was a positive correlation between SBS and ARI.

Bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to prefabricated acrylic teeth

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the force to debond stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to acrylic teeth using different combinations of adhesive and surface treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred prefabricated upper lateral incisor acrylic teeth were divided into 4 equal groups: Transbond XT® adhesive only (Group 1, control), Transbond XT® adhesive with sandblasting (Group 2), Transbond XT® adhesive with abrasion / + methyl methacrylate (MMA) (Group 3) and Triad® Gel only (Group 4). The force in Newtons (N) to debond the brackets was measured. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise multi-comparison of means (Šidak's adjustment) were undertaken.

RESULTS

The highest force to debond was recorded for Group 2 (275.7 N; SD 89.0) followed by Group 3 (241.9 N; SD 76.0), Group 1 (142.7 N; SD 36.7) and Group 4 (67.9 N; SD 21.1). Significant differences in bond strength measurements between the experimental groups were detected. Mean force values for the groups revealed no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both sandblasting and surface abrasion/+ application of methyl methacrylate (MMA) in combination with Transbond XT® adhesive are recommended for bonding stainless orthodontic brackets to acrylic teeth.