Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Can a Self-etching Primer be Effective in Bonding Aligner Attachments to Different Types of Ceramics?

Objective

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pretreatment with a self-etching primer for bonding aligner attachments to lithium disilicate (LD) and monolithic zirconia (MZ) ceramics.

Methods

Forty ceramics, including LD (n=20) and MZ (n=20), were divided into four study groups according to the surface pretreatments: LD specimens pretreated with universal primer (Monobond Plus, MP) after hydrofluoric acid etching (Group 1); MZ ceramics pretreated with MP after sandblasting (Group 2); LD ceramics pretreated with self-etching ceramic primer (Monobond etch & prime, MEP) (Group 3); and MZ ceramics pretreated with MEP after sandblasting (Group 4). The aligner composite (GC Aligner Connect) and universal adhesive (GPremio Bond) were used to prepare the resin attachments. The bond strength was evaluated by micro-shear bond strength (SBS) testing (0.1 mm/min) after thermocycling, and the remnant adhesive was scored according to the resin attachment remnant index (RARI). The SBS data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests, and the RARI scores were analyzed using the chi-square test.

Results

Group 1 had the lowest SBS, and group 2 had the highest SBS. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of bond strength (p<0.05). The RARI scores showed no significant differences, regardless of the pretreatment and ceramic type.

Conclusion

The use of a self-etching primer increased the bond strength of resin attachments on LD ceramics. For zirconia ceramics, both ceramic primers are recommended for aligner attachment bonding.

Comparison of Three Different Orthodontic Adhesives Bonded to Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: SEM and SEM/EDX Analysis (In Vitro Study)

Objectives

To compare three different orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive, Heliosit Orthodontic, Fuji Ortho LC) bonded to two types of orthodontic brackets: ceramic brackets (Fascination Roth 0.22) and metallic brackets (Topic Roth 0.22, Dentaurum).

Materials and methods

The study was performed on 18 human teeth (6 for each adhesive). The prepared teeth were divided into three groups according to the examination time. Subsequently, they were observed after 1, 2 and 3 weeks following bonding. After the experimental procedure, the teeth samples were cut in half along the longitudinal axis in the vestibulo-oral direction, fixed with conductive carbon cement, placed in a high-vacuum evaporator and then coated with carbon. One half of each sample was observed under a Field-emission gun scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM Hitachi SU 8030, Japan), while on the second half of the samples qualitative (X-ray line-scans) and semi-quantitative point X-ray energy dispersive analyses (EDX) were performed with Thermo Noran (USA) NSS System 7, equipped with Ultra Dry detector (30 mm2 window).

Results

Transbond XT had an ideal bond with the enamel and the bracket base, with rare presence of microgaps and cracks in the enamel. Heliosit Orthodontic demonstrated a better bond relationship with the bracket base than the enamel, whereas in the latter the presence of microgaps in the bond was observed. The microphotographs of Fuji Ortho LC demonstrated many cracks inside the adhesive, and some of them continued to move forward into the enamel surface. Therefore, an impression of a very solid bond relationship with the enamel exists, with cracks being present in the enamel surface and never at the enamel-adhesive interface. Microgaps also appeared at the bracket-adhesive interface.

Conclusion

Transbond XT is a highly filled composite resin and is an ideal orthodontic adhesive in each aspect examined, with an ideal enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interface. Heliosit Orthodontic provides better bracket-adhesive interface compared to the enamel. Fuji Ortho LC as a solid resin-modified GIC provides a better enamel-adhesive interface, compared to the bracket base.

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.

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.

Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets

Objective

The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods.

Material and methods

Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi² test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined.

Results

LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level.

Conclusions

MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary.

Clinical relevance

There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.

Comparison of feldspathic veneer surface treatments on ceramic bracket SBS, ARI and surface roughness after different debonding/polishing methods: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse, in vitro, surface properties and the shear bond strength after debonding and polishing procedures of ceramic brackets directly bonded to 0.3-0.5-mm thick feldspathic veneers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty six feldspathic ceramic veneers samples (0.3 to 0.5-mm thick) were allocated into groups according to veneers surface treatment procedures: (S) glaze layer was retained; (SHF) hydrofluoric (HF) acid etch; (SOXA) Al2O3 sandblasting; and (SB) diamond burs roughening. Specimens were treated with silane Monobond N® and ceramic brackets bonded with Transbond XT^®. Shear bonding strength (SBS) was assessed with a universal testing machine and ARI evaluated under a stereomicroscopic coupled to a digital camera. Remaining bonding composite was removed using a porcelain polishing kit and surface roughness assessed with a stylus profilometer.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were identified for SBS among the study groups (S, SHF, SOXA and SB) (P>0.05). The majority of the specimens presented ARI scores 3 and 2 (P>0.05). All of the study groups presented increased surface roughness after debonding and polishing procedures (P<0.05), with significant greater values observed in SB group (RaF: 1.27±0.41; RzF: 6.23±1.82), (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surface treatment with hydrofluoric acid etch, Al₂O₃ sandblasting and diamond bur did not enhance SBS of orthodontic brackets bonded to ceramic veneers. Ceramic surfaces treated with diamond burs presented significantly increased roughness after adhesive removal.