Zheng BW, Cao S, Al-Somairi MAA, He J, Liu Y. Effect of enamel-surface modifications on shear bond strength using different adhesive materials.
BMC Oral Health 2022;
22:224. [PMID:
35672818 PMCID:
PMC9175421 DOI:
10.1186/s12903-022-02254-7]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2022] [Accepted: 05/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to investigate the effect of enamel-surface modifications on the shear bond strength between ceramic brackets bonded using different adhesive materials and the enamel surface and to identify the most suitable clinical adhesive and bonding method. Whether the non-acid-etching treatment met the clinical bond strength was also determined.
METHODS
A total of 108 extracted premolars were divided into nine groups (n = 12) based on the different enamel-surface modification techniques (acid etching, deproteinization, and wetting). Group 1 was bonded with Transbond™ XT adhesive, whereas groups 2-9 were bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). The treatment methods for each group were as follows: groups 1 and 2, acid etching; group 3, acid etching and wetting; group 4, acid etching and deproteinization; group 5, acid etching, deproteinization, and wetting; group 6, deproteinization; group 7, deproteinization and wetting; group 8, without treatment; and group 9, wetting. The samples' shear bond strength was measured using an universal testing machine. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was examined using a stereomicroscope. The enamel-surface morphology was observed with a scanning electron microscope. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis, and p < 0.05 and α = 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The ARIs of groups 1-5 and 6-9 were statistically significant (p = 0.000). The enamel surface of groups 1-5 was demineralized, and only a tiny amount of protein remained in groups 7 and 8, whereas a thick layer of protein remained in groups 8 and 9.
CONCLUSIONS
RMGIC adhesive did not damage the enamel surface and achieved the required clinical bond strength. The enamel surface was better treated with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite preferably under non-acid-etching conditions.
Collapse