High Bond Durability of Universal Adhesives on Glass Ceramics Facilitated by Silane Pretreatment

Yao, Chenmin; Yang, Hongye; Yu, Jianming; Zhang, L; Zhu, Yuchan; Huang, Cui

doi:10.2341/17-227-l

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…45 In a study published in 2018, researchers compared All Bond Universal, Adhese Universal, Clearfil Universal Bond, and Single Bond Universal efficiency on etched lithium disilicate glass ceramics after or without silane application, concluding that the non-silanized groups had a reduced bonding effectiveness and additional silane pretreatment helped improve the long-term durability. 19 Similar shear bond strength values were observed, when testing different bonding materials, on carefully prepared ceramics or enamel.…”

Section: Different Bonding Materialssupporting

confidence: 65%

“…13 Reliability of studies increases when efforts are made to achieve similarity with the oral environment, for example, through thermocycling of the tested samples, as this influences bond strength. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Throughout the articles included in this review, minimal bonding strengths were 6-8 MPa. 23 Many studies rely on mean shear bond strength when comparing different primers or different ceramic surface preparation techniques, as few of them obtain statistically significant results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Labuneț

Kui

Voina-Tonea

et al. 2021

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ceramic materials are constantly evolving, achieving good functionality and aesthetics. Bonding to ceramics may be difficult because of high toxicity procedures and risk of surface damage. The review aims to answer several research questions: Is there a golden standard for bonding to ceramic? Are there adhesives or types of photopolymerization lamps that produce a higher bond strength on certain types of ceramics rather than others? Articles focusing on the bonding process of orthodontic attachments to ceramic surfaces searched in Pubmed, Medline and Embase, published between 1990 and 2018 were revised. Exclusions concerned bonding to non-ceramic surfaces, bonding to ceramic surfaces that are not destined for orthodontics or laser usage. Forty-nine articles that matched the inclusion criteria were researched. The following categories of original research articles were compared and discussed: metallic brackets bonding to ceramic surfaces, ceramic brackets to ceramic surfaces, bonding to new types of ceramics, such as zirconia, lithium disilicate, different photopolymerisation devices used on bonding to ceramics. Some types of adhesive may achieve minimal bond strength (6-8 MPa) even on glazed ceramic. Ceramic surface preparation may be done by sandblasting or hydrofluoric acid (60s application and 9.6%) with generally similar results. Studies rarely show any statistical difference and there are reduced number of samples in most studies. Ceramic brackets show better adhesion to ceramic surfaces and the same bonding protocol is advised. A higher bond strength may lead to ceramic surface. Few studies focus on newer types of ceramics; additional research is necessary. There is no clear evidence that a certain type of photopolymerization device produces higher shear bond strength values.

show abstract

Section: Different Bonding Materialssupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Labuneț

Kui

Voina-Tonea

et al. 2021

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seven different indirect substrates were considered in this review. These included lithium disilicate ceramic, 20,22,23,25,28‐39 yttrium‐stabilized zirconium dioxide ceramic, 20 ‐22, 24,27,32,37,40‐53 leucite‐reinforced ceramic, 20,54‐56 feldspathic porcelain, 32,59 polymer infiltrated ceramic material, 19,58 resin composite, 20,26,29,57,59‐66 and metal alloys 67–69 . The characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bonding Strength of Universal Adhesives to Indirect Substrates: A Meta‐Analysis of in Vitro Studies

Cuevas‐Suárez

Rosa

Vitti

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the in vitro bond strength of universal adhesive systems to indirect substrates. Material and Methods: Two reviewers performed a literature search up to March 2018 in seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BBO. The review included studies that compared the bond strength of universal adhesives and well-established material-specific primers to indirect substrates: lithium disilicate ceramic, yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide ceramic, leucite-reinforced ceramic, feldspathic porcelain, polymer infiltrated ceramic material, resin composite or metal alloys. Analyses were carried out using RevMan 5.3.5. A global comparison was performed with the standardized mean difference using a random-effects models at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: A total of 45 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and the meta-analysis was performed with 42 studies. Bond strength to glass-based ceramics and alloys was improved with the use of a specific-primer as separate step before the bonding procedures (lithium disilicate, p < 0.001; alloys, p < 0.001). The bond strength to zirconium substrates was improved with the use of universal adhesives (p < 0.001). For bond strength to composite resin as indirect substrate, universal adhesives performed in a manner similar to that of the material-specific primer (p = 0.11). Conclusions:The clinical procedure of luting zirconia and resin composite restorations could be simplified by using single-bottle universal adhesives. However, the ability of universal adhesives to achieve an adequate and durable bond to glass-based ceramics and alloys appears to be limited.

show abstract

“…This outcome shows that the utilization of additional silane pretreatment can improve the bond stability between lithium disilicate glass ceramics and resin composites. This mechanism could be basically attributed to the formation of chemical bonds between silica‐phase glass ceramics and resin matrix through siloxane bonds (29). Moreover, applying an additional silane may increase the hydrophobicity and inhibit water uptake so as to decrease the possibility of hydrolytic degradation of ceramic–resin bonds and increase the durable bonding quality of the adhesive interface (30).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zhang

Yang

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

High Bond Durability of Universal Adhesives on Glass Ceramics Facilitated by Silane Pretreatment

Abstract: The simplified procedure reduced the ceramic-resin bonding effectiveness of universal adhesives after aging, and additional silane pretreatment helped improve the long-term durability.

Cited by 29 publications

References 40 publications

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Orthodontic Attachment Adhesion to Ceramic Surfaces

Bonding Strength of Universal Adhesives to Indirect Substrates: A Meta‐Analysis of in Vitro Studies

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About