Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets

Abstract

Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi2 test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.

Impact of different pretreatments and attachment materials on shear bond strength between monolithic zirconia restorations and metal brackets

“…The idea was to have a method that would result in reliable SBS values for all types of ceramics. Resulting from a previous study the combination of CoJet and RXP was shown to be effective for bonding brackets to different types of silicate ceramics 26 . The present findings indicate also consistent adhesion using this combination when brackets are bonded to zirconia substrates and is in accordance with the findings of other studies 19 , 27 although they used a ceramic instead of a metal bracket.…”

“…Despite of thermal cycling, SBS was tested after 90 days of wet storage at 37 °C. Although wet environment can have an influence on SBS values as is can cause a degradation of fillers and weaken the attachment material or hydrolysis 33 , this kind of aging regimen was only considered in two further orthodontic SBS studies 26 , 39 . Within the FU groups SBS values were lower for all the different attachment materials after 90 days of wet storage and the combination of FU/BF and FU/BP showed the lowest median SBS values within the study, but values were still in the range of the required 5–10 MPa 2 , 3 .…”

“…When silicate ceramics are pretreated with alumina powder there is a higher risk to cause fractures and cracks within the ceramic as with silica coating (CoJet) due to the geometry of the particles 10 . Therefore, the CoJet system was used for pretreatment in accordance with a previous study 26 .…”

Can a Self-etching Primer be Effective in Bonding Aligner Attachments to Different Types of Ceramics?

“…Therefore, the appropriate method for conducting ceramic surface treatment in clinical practice has been a topic of discussion. Although many alternatives have been recommended for bracket bonding to LD and MZ ceramics, 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 there are limited data on aligner attachment bonding to different ceramics. In a recent study, the use of an all-in-one universal bonding agent and a high-viscosity universal composite after air abrasion resulted in the highest SBS values for attachment bonding to LD ceramics.…”

Study Comparing the Shear Bond Forte of Ceramics with Metal Reinforcement to Unreinforced Ceramic Brackets

“…The danger of enamel fracture is increased by the force used by debonding tools. Swartz recommended using tiny pliers to remove brackets 4 . There are several ways to remove brackets, including electro thermal, ultrasonic, and laser.…”