Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatment and Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets

Abstract

Objective. This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of metal brackets to machinable ceramics and veneering porcelain using different adhesive resins. Materials and methods. Machined ceramic specimens (10 × 10 × 2 mm) were prepared from Vitablocs mark II (Vita) and IPS e.max® CAD (Ivoclar). Layered porcelain fused to metal (IPS d.Sign®, Ivoclar) was used to fabricate PFM specimens (n = 60/group). Half of specimens were etched (9.6% HF, 15 sec), and the rest were nonetched. Three resin bonding systems were used for attaching metal brackets (Victory series™ APC II, 3M) to each group (n = 10): Transbond™ XT (3M), Light Bond™ (Reliance), or Blugloo™ (Ormco), all cured with LED curing unit (Bluephase G1600, Vivadent) for 50 s each. Specimens were immersed in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours prior to shear bond testing (Instron) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Debond surface of ceramic and bracket base was examined for failure mode (FM), Ceramic Damage Index (CDI), and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparisons were used to analyze the differences in bond strength. The chi-squared test was used to determine significance effect of FM, CDI, and ARI. Results. Significant differences in shear bond strength among group were found (p≤0.05) related to ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement. Conclusion. Bond strength of bracket to ceramic is affected by type of ceramic, resin cement, and ceramic surface conditioning. Etching ceramic surface enhanced ceramic-bracket bond strength. However, bond strengths in nontreated ceramic surface groups were still higher than bond strength required for bonding in orthodontic treatment.

Shear bond strength of different bonding agents to orthodontic metal bracket and zirconia

“…Compared with the metal bracket, the ceramic bracket provides a cosmetic appeal; hence, it is suitable for patients who have high aesthetic demand during clinical treatment 10) . Studies have shown that the bonding performance of metal brackets on the tooth surface is better than that of ceramic brackets [10][11][12] Recently, the number of adult patients in need of orthodontic treatment with ceramic restorations has gradually increased 13) . Clinically, based on the unsatisfactory bond strength between a metal bracket and ceramic restoration, the patient is required to replace the ceramic crown with resin material in order to ensure that the treatment plan could be carried out 14,15) .…”

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

“…Only a few studies reported the estimated size of outcomes [ 5 , 7 , 27 , 30 , 46 ]. No studies reported information relative to the protocol domain, except for three [ 15 , 43 , 74 ].…”

“…Mechanical methods like sandblasting with aluminium oxide, the use of diamond burs and laser irradiation help produce micromechanical retentions. As for chemical methods, which are used to establish a porous surface on the ceramic, the most commonly used products include phosphoric acid (PhA), hydrofluoric acid (HF), silane and, as of recently, universal adhesives [ 1 , 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].…”

“…However, it is not only the ceramic surface treatment method that influences the bond strength, factors such as ceramic type, bracket material and design, light curing source, adhesive system properties and clinician’s experience are as equally important when trying to achieve the best results [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 15 ].…”

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

“…On etchable ceramics, hydrofluoric acid increases shear bond strength. 53 On lithium disilicate ceramics, IPS ceramic etching gel™ and Monobond plus achieved better results than the one step system, containing etching and primer. 54,55 Feldspathic and lithium disilicate were bonded with either Transbond primer or Assure Plus after sandblasting and etching with 9.6% HF.…”