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

Residual Adhesive Removal Methods for Rebonding of Debonded Orthodontic Metal Brackets: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Debonding of orthodontic brackets is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the best option for treating debonded brackets should be indicated. This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of rebonded brackets after different residual adhesive removal methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BVS databases were screened up to December 2020. Bond strength comparisons were made considering the method used for removing the residual adhesive on the bracket base. A total of 12 studies were included for the meta-analysis. Four different adhesive removal methods were identified: sandblasting, laser, mechanical grinding, and direct flame. When compared with new orthodontic metallic brackets, bond strength of debonded brackets after air abrasion (p = 0.006), mechanical grinding (p = 0.007), and direct flame (p < 0.001) was significantly lower. The use of an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser showed similar shear bond strength (SBS) values when compared with those of new orthodontic brackets (p = 0.71). The Er:YAG laser could be considered an optimal method for promoting the bond of debonded orthodontic brackets. Direct flame, mechanical grinding, or sandblasting are also suitable, obtaining clinically acceptable bond strength values.

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.

Assessment the Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets to CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Composite and Interpenetrating Network Composite after Different Surface Treatments

Adult orthodontics may confront problems related to the bonding performance of orthodontic brackets to new generation restorative materials used for crown or laminate restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to two new generation CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite after different surface treatments. Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, hydrofluoric acid (9%), sandblasting (50 μm Al₂O₃), and silane were applied to the surfaces of 120 CAD/CAM specimens with 2 mm thickness and then ceramic brackets were bonded to the treated surfaces of the specimens. Bond strength was evaluated using the shear bond strength test. According to the results, CAD/CAM block types and surface treatment methods have significant effects on shear bond strength. The lowest bond strength values were found in the specimens treated with silane (3.35 ± 2.09 MPa) and highest values were found in the specimens treated with sandblast (8.92 ± 2.77 MPa). Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid surface treatment led to the most durable bonds for the two types of CAD/CAM blocks in the present study. In conclusion, different surface treatments affect the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite. Among the evaluated treatments, sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid application resulted in sufficient bonding strength to ceramic brackets for both of the CAD/CAM materials.

Comparison of two different debonding techniques in orthodontic treatment

Aim

The purpose of this research is to investigate whether and how the adhesive bond failure site varied in relation to the material used for the orthodontic bonding and debonding technique applied.

Materials and methods

Two different methods of orthodontic debonding were included in our survey; cutters for orthodontics and debonding plier. Three different materials for the adhesion of the bracket: composite light curing, self-curing composite and glass ionomer cement. The remaining amount of adhesive on the tooth surface is an important parameter that gives information on how the location of the posting site varied during the debonding. 60 dental elements, maxillary and mandibular, previously extracted for orthodontic reasons, as well as periodontal, were included in our research. We investigated a possible significant correlation between different variables (debonding technique and materials for membership) and the ARI index.

Conclusions

The use of orthodontic cutters or debonding pliers does not affect the adhesive bond failure site and both techniques have a tendency to leave a significant amount of adhesive on the surface enamel. In the resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements, detachment occurs at the interface enamel-adhesive and this pattern of detachment increases the risk of the enamel damage during debonding. In both types of composite resins (photopolymerizable or self-curing), the detachment occurs at the interface bracketing adhesive. In this case the amount of remaining adhesive material on the tooth must be removed with further methods, which in addition, increase the risk of iatrogenic injury as well as the working hours.

Effect of Rebonding on the Bond Strength of Orthodontic Tubes: A Comparison of Light Cure Adhesive and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement In Vitro

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of different enamel preparation procedures and compare light cure composite (LCC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) on the bond strength of orthodontic metal tubes rebonded to the enamel. Twenty human molars were divided into two groups (n = 10). Tubes were bonded using LCC (Transbond XT) in group 1 and RMGI (Fuji Ortho LC) in group 2. The tubes in each group were bonded following manufacturers' instructions (experiment I) and then debonded using testing machine. Then, the same brackets were sandblasted and rebonded twice. Before the first rebonding, the enamel was cleaned using carbide bur (experiment II) and before second rebonding, it was cleaned using carbide bur and soda blasted (experiment III). Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed no significant difference between RMGI and LCC bond strengths in case of normal bonding and rebonding, when enamel was cleaned using carbide bur before rebonding. Enamel soda blasting before rebonding significantly increased RMGI tensile bond strength value compared to LLC (p < 0.05). LCC and RMGI (especially RMGI) provide sufficient bond strengths for rebonding of molar tubes, when residual adhesive from previous bonding is removed and enamel soda blasted.