Surface modification for bonding between amalgam and orthodontic brackets

Effect of Polishing and Universal Bonding Application on Mercury Release from Aged Amalgam after Exposure to Bleaching Agents

Objectives: Teeth bleaching is an accepted and modern treatment in cosmetic dentistry. Bleaching agents may affect amalgam restorations and increase mercury release; therefore, patients are at increased risk of mercury exposure in the body. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of polishing and universal bonding application on mercury release from aged amalgams exposed to bleaching. Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, 64 dental amalgam specimens with dimensions of 3×5×10 were prepared and divided into two experimental and control groups. Each group was further divided into 4 subgroups and received one of the following treatments: no intervention, surface bonding, polishing, or polishing and surface bonding. Subsequently, the samples were immersed in bleaching agent containing 7% hydrogen peroxide and the amount of mercury released after 96h was measured. The results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α≤0.05). Results: The results showed that the type of solution (P<0.05) and surface treatment (P<0.001) significantly affected the level of mercury release. However, there was no significant interaction between surface treatment methods in the bleaching group and those in the phosphate buffer group (P=0.621). Conclusion: Bleaching agents were found to enhance mercury release from dental amalgam. The application of polishing and universal bonding on amalgam surfaces exhibited significant effects on the reduction of the mercury release.

The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study

AIM

To evaluate the effect of three different reconditioning techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five orthodontic brackets were bonded to human premolar teeth using Transbond™ XT. After debonding, the samples were randomly assigned into equal groups to assess three techniques for the removal of residual adhesive from bracket bases: in Group A, each bracket base was sandblasted with aluminum oxide; in Group B₁, each base was cleaned superficially with a greenstone bur; and in Group B₂, the bases were thoroughly abraded with a greenstone bur. Subsequently, brackets were rebonded and the SBS and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), plus Tukey and Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc tests (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

The average SBSs were: Group A, 11.75 (±4.83) MPa; Group B₁, 8.22 (±4.01) MPa; and Group B₂, 7.54 (±2.85) MPa. No statistically significant differences in SBS were found between Groups A and B₁(P = 0.051) and Groups B₁ and B₂(P = 0.885), but there was a significant difference between Groups A and B₂(P = 0.016). Regarding ARI scores, there were statistically significant differences between Groups A and B₂(P < 0.001) and between B₁ and B₂(P = 0.014), but not between Groups A and B₁(P = 0.068).

CONCLUSION

All reconditioning methods were found to have a positive effect, but the sandblasting technique performed best. Brackets reconditioned by sandblasting and superficial grinding mainly showed mixed-type failure, while in samples thoroughly reconditioned by greenstone bur, bonding failure occurred predominantly at the adhesive/bracket interface.

Effect of different surface treatment with panaviaV5 on shear bond strength of metal brackets to silver amalgam

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to amalgam surfaces by two surface treatment methods, two different adhesives, and one intermediate resin and also to evaluate surface roughness after two preparation methods as well as bond failure mode.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this in-vitro study forty-eight amalgam samples were randomly allocated to four groups. In Groups 1-3, specimens were sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide, followed by application of Alloy primer in Groups 1 and 2. In Group 3 Alloy primer had not used. In Group 4, samples were prepared by silica coating using a silane coupling agent. Surface roughness analysis was performed in 10 additional samples after two surface treatments. The brackets in Group 1 were bonded with Transbond XT and those in other groups were bonded with Panavia V5. All specimens were examined for SBS following 5000 times thermocycling at 5°C-50°C. Modified adhesive remnant index was utilized for the bond failure mode. Data analysis was done by one-way analysis of variance, post hoc Tukey, Kruskal-Walli and Mann-Whitney U tests. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The findings indicated the mean SBS were low (ranged from 0.19 to 4.66 MPa) and significantly lower in Group 3 than in Group 4 (P = 0.009). Bond failure occurred in adhesive/amalgam interface in nearly all samples. Silica coating produced significantly lower roughness than sandblast (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Silica coating had a significant higher bond strength than sandblast without application of Alloy primer. However compared to sandblast with Alloy primer, silica coating did not significantly improve the bond strength. Chemical bond between PanaviaV5 and sandblasted amalgam was not considerable.

Analysing the potential of hydrophilic adhesive systems to optimise orthodontic bracket rebonding

Introduction

Bond failure during fixed orthodontic treatment is a frequently occurring problem. As bracket rebonding is associated with reduced shear bond strength, the aim of the present investigation is to analyse the effect of different innovative rebonding systems to identify optimised rebonding protocols for orthodontic patient care.

Methods

Metallic brackets were bonded to the frontal enamel surfaces of 240 bovine lower incisors embedded in resin bases. Teeth were randomly divided into two major experimental groups: in group 1 a hydrophilic primer (Assure™ PLUS) was compared to commonly used orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT™, BrackFix®, Grengloo™) and a zero control. In group 2 different rebonding systems were analysed using a hydrophilic primer (Assure™ PLUS), a methyl methacrylate-consisting primer (Plastic Conditioner) and a conventional adhesive (Transbond XT™). All teeth were tested for shear bond strength according to the DIN-13990 standard, the Adhesive Remnant Index and enamel fracture rate.

Results

The hydrophilic primer enhanced shear bond strength at first bonding (Assure™ PLUS 20.29 ± 4.95 MPa vs. Transbond XT™ 18.45 ± 2.57 MPa; BrackFix® 17 ± 5.2 MPa; Grengloo™ 19.08 ± 3.19 MPa; Meron 8.7 ± 3.9 MPa) and second bonding (Assure™ PLUS 16.76 ± 3.71 MPa vs. Transbond XT™ 13.06 ± 3.19 MPa). Using Plastic Conditioner did not seem to improve shear bond strength at rebonding (13.57 ± 2.94). When enamel etching was left out, required shear bond strength could not be achieved (Plastic Conditioner + Assure™ PLUS 8.12 ± 3.34 MPa; Plastic Conditioner: 3.7 ± 1.95 MPa). Hydrophilic priming systems showed decreased ARI-scores (second bonding: 2.63) and increased enamel fracture rates (first bonding: 55%; second bonding 21,05%).

Conclusions

Based on the present study we found that rebonding strength could be compensated by the use of hydrophilic priming systems. The additional use of a methyl methacrylate-consisting primer does not seem to enhance shear bond strength. No etching approaches resulted in non-sufficient bond strength.

Orthodontic Bonding: Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Patients seeking orthodontic treatment are increasing, and clinicians often have to place brackets on various surfaces aside from enamel. It is crucial to know what materials or instruments are required to bond brackets to each surface.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to serve as a clinical guideline for the safest and most effective approaches taken to condition various surfaces for bonding to orthodontic brackets and provide background knowledge on the subject.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed and EBSCO databases were searched, along with the use of Google Scholar search engine, to obtain relevant articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals, from 1955 to 2020. Keywords used were Shear bond strength; Orthodontic bracket; Base design; Etching; Sandblasting; Laser; Conditioning; Enamel; Ceramic; Porcelain; Gold; Amalgam; Composite.

CONCLUSION

Even though orthophosphoric acid is the most widely used enamel conditioning agent, laser etching should be considered to avoid enamel decalcification. Hydrofluoric acid is the current standard for ceramic conditioning; however, its use intraorally should be minimized due to its toxicity. Orthophosphoric acid, CoJet-Sand air abrasion, and laser etching are viable alternatives for conditioning ceramic. Monobond Etch & Prime is toxic and should not be used intraorally. Composite can be conditioned by bur roughening, and the use of ceramic brackets is recommended. Amalgam and gold surfaces can be conditioned adequately by air abrasion. Despite the claims of many authors, the maximum shear forces that orthodontic brackets are subjected to are not 6-8 mega pascal (MPa). Further investigation is required in that regard. More in vivo studies need to be performed to confirm the in vitro results.

Whitening Dentifrices Effect on Enamel with Orthodontic Braces after Simulated Brushing

Objective  This study aimed to evaluate in vitro the effects of whitening dentifrices on enamel color, the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets and adhesive remnant index (ARI).

Materials and Methods  Eighty bovine teeth with brackets were randomly divided into four groups ( n = 20): control group (GC)–water, test group 1 (GT1)–Colgate Total 12, test group 2 (GT2)–Curaprox Black Is White, and group test 3 (GT3)–Luminous White. All groups were submitted to brushing, simulating 12 months. The specimens were exposed to spectrophotometer color evaluation and to a shear strength test in a universal test machine using a 300 kN load with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The ARI was evaluated with a stereoscopic magnifying glass.

Statistical Analysis  Nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests were used for the color analysis, and Friedman and Nemenyi tests were used to compare the times in the variable. To compare the shear force between the groups, the data were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test, and ARI was analyzed using Fisher’s exact test, always with a significance level of 5%.

Results  In the color analysis, GT3 presented the greatest progression in whitening effect. GT1 had greater shear strength than GT3 did ( p ≤ 0.05). For ARI, the score 1 was predominant in the GC and GT1. The GT2 and GT3 groups had scores of 3.

Conclusion  The whitening dentifrices promoted significant color change over the 12-month brushing time and may have interfered in the resistance to shear bond strength and ARI.

Effectiveness of a universal adhesive for repair bonding to composite and amalgam

The study aimed to compare the repair bond strength of aged composite and amalgam repaired with resin composite after various mechanical and adhesive surface treatments. Specimens were aged by thermal cycling (10,000 cycles, 5-55°C) and randomly subjected to one of three surface treatments: diamond bur abrasion, aluminum oxide air abrasion, or silica coating. Conventional bonding or a universal adhesive with incorporated silane was applied afterward (each n = 16) and resin composite was attached. In the control groups (each n = 16), resin composite was attached using one of the above adhesives without prior mechanical surface conditioning. After further thermal cycling, the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA, Weibull statistics, two sample t-tests, and Chi²-test (P < 0.05). The SBS of the repaired amalgam was significantly lower than that of the composite and mechanical pretreatment significantly increased SBS. The universal adhesive significantly improved the SBS of the repaired amalgam compared to the conventional bonding agent and mechanical pretreatment increased the number of cohesive/mixed failures. Amalgam restorations may be repaired using resin composites, but the resulting SBS is lower than that obtained with composite.