Shear Bond Strength of Metal Brackets to Porcelain Using a Universal Adhesive

The Effect of Various Lasers on the Bond Strength Between Orthodontic Brackets and Dental Ceramics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess how laser conditioning affected brackets bonded to dental ceramics' shear bond strength (SBS). Materials and methods: The study was conducted by searching Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to September 14, 2022. In addition, the reference lists of the relevant articles were checked manually. Articles that compared SBS of laser-treated feldspathic, lithium disilicate, or zirconia surfaces with other standard techniques for bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets were considered. Using a random-effects model, data pooling was carried out as the weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: This study initially contained 1717 reports, and following review, 32 articles were deemed suitable for our meta-analysis. The pooling results showed that the treatments with lasers such as "Er:YAG" [WMD = -1.12 MPa; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.93 to -0.31], "Er:YAG + Silane" (WMD = -3.08 MPa; 95% CI: -4.77 to -1.40), and "Nd: YAG + Silane" (WMD = -2.58 MPa; 95% CI: -3.76 to -1.40) had statistically significant lower adhesion values compared with controls. Contrarily, "Ti:Sapphire femtosecond" demonstrated significantly higher bonding values (WMD = 0.94 MPa; 95% CI: 0.29-1.60). In contrast, other interventions obtained no statistically significant difference in SBS. Conclusions: Most of the laser groups showed results comparable with those of conventional approaches. Although more research is necessary for definitive conclusions, laser treatment may be an effective option for treating the surfaces of ceramic materials.

Bond Strength and Surface Roughness of Two Ceramics After Metal Bracket Debonding

Objective

The aims of this study were to compare the bond strength between metallic brackets and two different glass ceramics and to evaluate the ceramic surface roughness after different finishing protocols.

Methods

The surface roughness of lithium disilicate and resin matrix ceramic samples was measured (initial). All samples were treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane and bonded to metallic brackets with orthodontic cement adhesive. Shear bond strength tests were performed using a universal testing machine (n=12). The surface roughness was measured again (intermediate, n=6) after removing the remaining cement adhesive from the ceramic surfaces with a diamond or 24-blade bur after polishing the ceramic surfaces (final, n=6).

Results

The resin matrix ceramic had the highest bond strength. The rotatory instrument used for the removal of cement adhesive did not affect the surface roughness of the resin matrix ceramic or lithium disilicate (p=0.985 and p=0.504, respectively), but did affect the evaluation time (p<0.001) for both restorative materials. The intermediate roughness was the highest. For the resin matrix ceramic, polishing promoted a final surface roughness similar to the initial condition; however, changes in the surface shape of this ceramic could be visibly observed when using a 24-blade bur.

Conclusion

The bond strength of metallic brackets bonded on resin-matrix ceramics is higher than bonding on lithium disilicate. The use of diamond burs for the removal of the remaining adhesive from the resin matrix ceramics is highly recommended.

Effect of incorporating silica-hydroxyapatite-silver hybrid nanoparticles into the resin-modified glass ionomer on the adhesive remnant index score and shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the effect of addition of silica-hydroxyapatite-silver (Si-HA-Ag) hybrid nanoparticles to light-cure glass ionomer (GI) on shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets bonded with this adhesive and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) score.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this in vitro experimental study, 50 sound extracted premolars were assigned to 5 groups (n=10) for orthodontic metal bracket bonding with BracePaste® composite, Fuji ORTHO™ pure resin modified GI (RMGI), and RMGI reinforced with 2wt%, 5wt% and 10wt% Si-HA-Ag nanoparticles. The SBS of brackets was measured by a universal testing machine. Debonded specimens were inspected under a stereomicroscope at×10 magnification to determine the ARI score. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Scheffe test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test (alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

The maximum mean SBS was recorded in BracePaste® composite followed by 2% RMGI, 0% RMGI, 5% RMGI and 10% RMGI. Only the difference between the BracePaste® composite and 10% RMGI was significant in this regard (P=0.006). The groups were not significantly different regarding the ARI scores (P=0.665). All the SBS values were within the clinically acceptable range.

CONCLUSION

Addition of 2wt% and 5wt% Si-HA-Ag hybrid nanoparticles to RMGI as orthodontic adhesive caused no significant change in SBS of orthodontic metal brackets while addition of 10wt% hybrid nanoparticles significantly decreased the SBS. Nonetheless, all the SBS values were within the clinically acceptable range. Addition of hybrid nanoparticles had no significant effect on the ARI score.

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 universal adhesive and silane pretreatment on bond durability of metal brackets to dental glass ceramics

This study aimed to investigate the effect of universal adhesive and silane pretreatment on the bond durability of metal brackets to dental glass ceramics. Eighty lithium disilicate glass ceramic specimens were randomly assigned to one of four groups (n = 20) defined by the pretreatment and adhesive used: (i) Adper Single Bond 2; (ii) silane + Adper Single Bond 2; (iii) Single Bond Universal; and (iv) silane +Single Bond Universal. Maxillary central incisor metal brackets were bonded on the ceramic surfaces with resin composite. A shear bond strength test was conducted after 24 h of water storage and after 10,000 thermocycles. Adhesive remnant index scoring and field-emission scanning electron microscopy were performed to determine adhesives remaining on the ceramic surfaces and the ceramic ultrastructure following bracket debonding, respectively. After 10,000 thermocycles, specimens treated with Single Bond Universal preserved an appropriate bond strength between brackets and glass ceramics and showed minimum ceramic surface damage following bracket debonding, which was not the case in the other three groups. The application of a silane-containing universal adhesive without silane pretreatment achieves adequate durability of the bond of metal brackets to dental glass ceramics and allows safe debonding, which may aid in optimizing the effectiveness for orthodontic treatment.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surface using universal adhesive compared to conventional method

BACKGROUND

Considering the increase in demand for orthodontic treatment in adults, bracket bond to restored teeth is a clinical challenge. This study sought to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to feldspathic porcelain using universal adhesive and conventional adhesive with and without silane application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this in vitro study Fifty-six feldspathic porcelain discs were roughened by bur, and 9.6% hydrofluoric acid was used for surface preparation. Samples were divided into the following four groups (n = 14): Group 1: universal adhesive, Group 2: universal adhesive/silane, Group 3: conventional adhesive, and Group 4: conventional adhesive/silane. Mandibular central incisor brackets were bonded, and SBS was measured by Instron^® machine. To assess the mode of failure, adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was determined. The data were analyzed using SPSS software and two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, and Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05 considered significant).

RESULTS

The highest SBS was noted in the universal adhesive/silane group (12.7 MP) followed by conventional adhesive/silane (11.9 MP), conventional adhesive without silane (7.6 MP), and universal adhesive without silane (4.4 MP). In the absence of silane, the conventional adhesive yielded significantly higher SBS than universal adhesive (P = 0.03). In the presence of silane, the two adhesives showed SBS values significantly higher than the values obtained when silane was not applied, while the two adhesives were not significantly different in terms of SBS in the presence of silane (P = 0.53). Based on ARI score, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 4 (P = 0.00) and Groups 2 and 4 (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current results, SBS of bracket to porcelain mainly depends on the use of silane rather than the type of adhesive. Both universal and conventional adhesives yield significantly higher SBS in the presence of silane compared to that in the absence of silane.