Comparison of the Shear Bond Strength of Metal Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Long-term Water-aged and Fresh Porcelain and Composite Surfaces

Shear bond strength of orthodontic molar tubes to composite restoration bonded with particular adhesives after different surface pre-treatments

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in vitro the shear bond strength of orthodontic molar tubes to composite restoration bonded with particular adhesives after different surface pre-treatments.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

The sample population is 60 extracted molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After the teeth were thermocycled, they were randomly divided into six groups according to the adhesive and various surface pre-treatments that had been applied. The surface pre-treatments included sandblasting with 50-μm aluminium oxide particles and roughening with diamond bur and 37% phosphoric acid. Transbond XT Adhesive Primer (3M Unitek) (TXT) and Assure Plus (Reliance Orthodontic Products) adhesives were used in the study. Following the application of the adhesives, the brackets were bonded to the surfaces of the teeth. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analysed with one-way ANOVA and LSD tests (P = .05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined using a stereomicroscope. Data from the ARI scores were submitted to Pearson's chi-squared test (P = .05).

RESULTS

The highest shear bond strengths were obtained in the Assure Plus group 15.05 ± 3.72 MPa after sandblasting (P < .05). The lowest shear bond strengths were found in the TXT group (7.52 ± 2.89 MPa; P < .05). Sandblasting and bur pre-treatment for TXT and Assure Plus adhesives increased shear bond strength in both of them. There were no significant differences in the ARI scores between the groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Sandblasting and roughening pre-treatment can increase the bond strength of teeth with composite restoration. Assure Plus is also more effective than conventional adhesive systems.

What Is the Most Effective Technique for Bonding Brackets on Ceramic-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The current state of the art regarding the most effective method to achieve an appropriate bond strength of brackets on ceramic surfaces isn’t consensual. This systematic review aims to compare the available surface treatments to ceramics and determine the one that allows to obtain the best bond strength. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO methodology was used, with the question “What is the most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic crowns or veneers?”. The research was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. In vitro and ex vivo studies were included. The methodological quality was evaluated using the guidelines for reporting of preclinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. Results: A total of 655 articles searched in various databases were initially scrutinized. Sevety one articles were chosen for quality analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high in most studies. The use of hydrofluoric acid (HF), silane and laser afforded the overall best results. HF and HF plus laser achieved significantly highest bond strength scores in felsdphatic porcelain, while laser was the best treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics. Conclusions: The most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic is dependent on the type of ceramic.

Effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to old composite

Background

At present, the demand for orthodontic treatment is on the rise. On the other hand, evidence shows that the bond strength of composite resins to old composite restorations is often unreliable. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets to old composite restorations.

Methods

In this in vitro experimental study, 60 nano-hybrid composite discs were fabricated. For aging, the discs were incubated in deionized water at 37 °C for 1 month. Next, they underwent 4 different surface treatments namely acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid, sandblasting, grinding, and Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation. Ceramic brackets were then bonded to the discs and underwent SBS testing.

Results

The maximum mean SBS value was obtained in the grinding group (9.16 ± 2.49 MPa), followed by the sandblasting (8.13 ± 2.58 MPa) and laser (6.57 ± 1.45 MPa) groups. The minimum mean SBS value was noted in the control group (5.07 ± 2.14 MPa).

Conclusion

All groups except for the control group showed clinically acceptable SBS. Therefore, grinding, sandblasting, and Er,Cr:YSGG laser are suggested as effective surface treatments for bonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets to aged composite.