Shear Bond Strength and Bracket Base Morphology of New and Rebonded Orthodontic Ceramic Brackets

Urichianu, Mihai; Makowka, Steven; Covell, David A.; Warunek, Stephen; Al-Jewair, Thikriat

doi:10.3390/ma15051865

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Orthodontic brackets are categorized as metal or ceramic brackets. Ceramic brackets were developed to meet the demand for improved aesthetics ( Urichianu et al, 2022 ). Despite their aesthetic appeal, ceramic brackets exhibit lower bond strength to enamel, acrylic, and porcelain surfaces compared to traditional metal brackets ( Pinho et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The possibility of clinical bonding between metal/ceramic brackets to zirconia: in vitro study

Hu,

Gao,

Huang

et al. 2024

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study aimed to assess the bond strength and durability of six bonding agents concerning their application to metal or ceramic brackets and zirconia.Materials and Methods: Six resin cement bonding agents (XT, XTS, RSBU, RGBU, SBPM, and GMP) were chosen for this investigation. Specimens were either stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h or subjected to 5,000 thermocycles before conducting a Shear Bond Strength (SBS) test. Statistical analysis of the SBS data was performed using three-way ANOVA and Games-Howell tests (α = 0.05). The Adhesive Remnant Index was examined, and the debonding surface details on brackets and zirconia were observed.Results: For metal brackets, all groups demonstrated clinically acceptable bond strength, irrespective of storage conditions, except for the XT group. Regarding ceramic brackets, all groups displayed acceptable bond strength after 24 h of water storage. However, following thermocycling, a significant decrease in SBS was noted across all groups (p < 0.05), with SBPM exhibiting a higher bond strength. Three-way ANOVA analysis indicated that SBS values were notably influenced by each factor, and an interaction among the three independent variables was observed (p = 0.000).Conclusion: The reliable bond strength between ceramic brackets and zirconia was significantly lower after thermocycling compared to that of metal brackets and zirconia. SBPM exhibited consistent and robust bond strength between ceramic/metal brackets and zirconia across various storage conditions. Furthermore, the HEMA-free adhesive demonstrated a potentially more consistent bonding performance compared to the HEMA-containing adhesive employed in this study.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The possibility of clinical bonding between metal/ceramic brackets to zirconia: in vitro study

Hu,

Gao,

Huang

et al. 2024

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ARI scores only indicate adhesive and cohesive failures at the enamel-bracket interface and are not related to SBS scores; therefore, the strength of the tooth enamel surface is not the only factor that determines which adhesive will adhere better to the enamel surface, but the surface strength of the bracket base is also decisive. 25,26 ARI scores of 4 and 5 are clinically advantageous in the debonding process because this means less adhesive adhering to the tooth, resulting in easier and faster removal and minimum destruction. 27,28 This study can conclude that desensitizing agents were able to increase the SBS of the orthodontic metal bracket post-in-office bleaching, with fluoride-based desensitizing agents having better SBS than non-fluoridebased desensitizing agents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Desensitizing agents’ post-bleaching effect on orthodontic bracket bond strength

Pamungkas,

Karunia,

Suparwitri

2024

Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nowadays, many patients wanting to bleach and do orthodontic treatment simultaneously, in-office bleaching is more favorable because of the instant results. However, in-office bleaching procedures result in severe enamel surface demineralization and decreasing the attachment of the orthodontic bracket. Applying a desensitizing agent after in-office bleaching can remineralize the enamel surface. There are two types of desensitizing agents: Fluoride-based and non-fluoride-based. Purpose: This study aims to analyze the effect of applying fluoride-based and non-fluoride-based desensitizing agents after in-office bleaching on orthodontic brackets. Methods: Twenty-seven post-extraction upper premolars were divided into three groups (n=9): Control group, fluoride-based group, and non-fluoride-based group. The samples were subjected to an in-office bleaching procedure before a fluoride desensitizing agent was applied to the fluoride group and a non-fluoride desensitizing agent was applied to the non-fluoride group. Then, a brackets bonding procedure was performed on all samples. The samples were tested for shear bond strength (SBS), and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was measured. The data was analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance on the SBS test, while the ARI scores were analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: The fluoride and non-fluoride groups showed a significantly increased SBS of the brackets after in-office bleaching (P < 0.05), with the fluoride-based desensitizing agent having the highest SBS score, while the ARI scores had an insignificant difference between all groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The application of desensitizing agents after in-office bleaching increased the metal brackets' SBS but could not change the ARI scores.

show abstract

“…Oral hygiene, orthodontic bonding technique, and nutrition are the factors determining the development of dental erosion during orthodontic treatment [ 11 , 22 , 23 ]. It is a matter of complex interaction between the enamel surface and bracket towards the adhesive layer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Acidic Environments on Dental Structures after Bracket Debonding

Iosif

Cuc

Prodan

et al. 2022

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brackets are metallic dental devices that are very often associated with acidic soft drinks such as cola and energy drinks. Acid erosion may affect the bonding between brackets and the enamel surface. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of brackets’ adhesion, in the presence of two different commercially available drinks. Sixty human teeth were divided into six groups and bonded with either resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) or resin composite (CR). A shared bond test (SBS) was evaluated by comparing two control groups with four other categories, in which teeth were immersed in either Coca-ColaTM or Red BullTM energy drink. The debonding between the bracket and enamel was evaluated by SEM. The morphological aspect correlated with SBS results showed the best results for the samples exposed to artificial saliva. The best adhesion resistance to the acid erosion environment was observed in the group of teeth immersed in Red BullTM and with brackets bonded with RMGIC. The debonded structures were also exposed to Coca-ColaTM and Red BullTM to assess, by atomic force microscopy investigation (AFM), the erosive effect on the enamel surface after debonding and after polishing restoration. The results showed a significant increase in surface roughness due to acid erosion. Polishing restoration of the enamel surface significantly reduced the surface roughness that resulted after debonding, and inhibited acid erosion. The roughness values obtained from polished samples after exposure to Coca-ColaTM and Red BullTM were significantly lower in that case than for the debonded structures. Statistical results evaluating roughness showed that Red BullTM has a more erosive effect than Coca-Cola™. This result is supported by the large contact surface that resulted after debonding. In conclusion, the prolonged exposure of the brackets to acidic drinks affected the bonding strength due to erosion propagation into both the enamel–adhesive interface and the bonding layer. The best resistance to acid erosion was obtained by RMGIC.

show abstract

Shear Bond Strength and Bracket Base Morphology of New and Rebonded Orthodontic Ceramic Brackets

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

The possibility of clinical bonding between metal/ceramic brackets to zirconia: in vitro study

The possibility of clinical bonding between metal/ceramic brackets to zirconia: in vitro study

Desensitizing agents’ post-bleaching effect on orthodontic bracket bond strength

Effects of Acidic Environments on Dental Structures after Bracket Debonding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About