Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconium Crowns

Mehmeti, Blerim; Azizi, Bleron; Kelmendi, Jeta; Iljazi-Shahiqi, Donika; Alar, Željko; Anić-Milošević, Sandra

doi:10.15644/asc51/2/2

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to numerous studies ( 4 , 6 , 13 , 24 , 25 ), the bond strength of ceramic brackets is higher than the strength of metallic brackets. But, our results indicate that this doesn’t occur at orthodontic brackets bonded to zirconia restorations, and this is in accordance with a study previously reported by Mehmeti et al (2017) ( 27 ), where metallic brackets, in comparison with ceramic brackets, bond better with zirconia restorations. This might be because of the base surface design of metallic brackets, producing a better mechanical coupling with zirconia ceramic substrate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Mehmeti¹,

Kelmendi²,

Iiljazi-Shahiqi³

et al. 2019

Acta Stomatol Croat

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim of this study was to analyze Shear Bond Strength (SBS) and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) of ceramic and metallic orthodontic brackets bonded to zirconia or lithium-disilicate ceramics used for prosthetic restorations, conditioned with hydrofluoric acid (HFA) or phosphoric acid (PhA), as well as to determine the Porcelain Fracture Index (PFI), in order to examine the condition of the ceramic surface after debonding. Material and methods The research was conducted on 96 prepared all-ceramic samples divided into 8 groups combined from the type of ceramic material, orthodontic brackets, and surface conditioning. SBS was tested with Universal Testing Machine, and the samples were analyzed using a Scanning Electron Microscope, to determine ARI and PFI. Statistical data were processed using ANOVA, with the level of significance α = 0.05. Results Lithium-disilicate showed better bond strength in almost all groups. However, no significant difference between the groups was noticed and none of the factors had a significant influence on the mean values of SBS (p>0.05). Nevertheless, ARI significantly depended on the type of bracket (p = 0.005), and PFI significantly depended on the type of etchant (p = 0.029). Conclusion The use of HFA for surface etching of zirconia and lithium-disilicate, does not cause a significant increase in the SBS values as compared to etching with PhA and silane application. Furthermore, HFA can weaken the surface structure of the ceramic, and considering its toxicity, might not be the best suitable conditioner prior to orthodontic bonding to lithium disilicate, and in particular to zirconia, also taking into account its crystalline structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Mehmeti¹,

Kelmendi²,

Iiljazi-Shahiqi³

et al. 2019

Acta Stomatol Croat

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, the samples that were given metal brackets displayed greater shear strength, and a statistically significant difference was indeed found between the metal bracket group and ceramic bracket group. Our finding matches that of the study by Mehmeti et al 19 but contradicts the article by García-Sanz et al 17 This may be due to the design of the metal bracket's base surface, that is, to an uneven surface that creates better mechanical retention compared with ceramic brackets. It would seem that the brackets' mechanical bond to zirconia is stronger than their chemical bond.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Some studies have shown that ceramic brackets are recommended for surfaces like zirconia ahead of metal brackets, 17 yet a recent study has claimed the opposite, finding that metal brackets seemed to adhere more strongly to zirconia surfaces because of their better base surface design and their method of retention. 19…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Shear Strength of Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Depending on Surface Treatment: An In Vitro Study

Cetik

Sitri

et al. 2019

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Due to the high demand for all-ceramic restorations, monolithic zirconia restorations are nowadays frequently used. With the demand for adult orthodontic treatments, orthodontists need to be mindful of the quality of their brackets bonding to this type of material, as it requires special conditioning. This study aimed to compare different surface treatments of zirconia when bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets. The objectives are to compare the shear bond strength; the amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of the material; the incidence of adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failures; and the occurrence of zirconia fractures. Materials and Methods Forty monolithic blocks of zirconia of a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm were prepared and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20): metallic or ceramic brackets. Each group was subsequently divided into two subgroups (n = 10) depending on the surface preparation (laser treatment or airborne particle abrasion): SMB (airborne particle abrasion, metal bracket), SCB (airborne particle abrasion, ceramic bracket), LMB (laser; metal bracket), and LCB (laser, ceramic bracket). The samples were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index and the occurrence of zirconia fractures and different types of failures were assessed by optical and electron microscopy. Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. Results The differences were significant between the metallic (SMB, LMB) and ceramic (SCB, LCB) bracket groups with regard to shear bond strength, with respectively 23.29 ± 5.34 MPa, 21.59 ± 4.03 MPa, 20.06 ± 4.05 MPa, and 17.55 ± 3.88 MPa. In terms of surface treatment, no statistical differences were found between the different groups. Conclusion Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia. The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength.

show abstract

“…The bonding of orthodontic brackets directly to the surfaces of ceramic material have shown a high degree failure rate when compared to enamel surface bonding. 4 Therefore, increasing the bond strength between the orthodontic brackets and various types of all-ceramic materials is one of the challenges that orthodontist has to deal with.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of various mechanical and chemical surface conditioning on the bonding of orthodontic brackets to all ceramic materials

Abuelenain

Linjawi

Alghamdi

et al. 2021

Journal of Dental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/purpose Increasing the bond strength between the orthodontic brackets and all-ceramic materials is one of the challenges facing orthodontists. The purpose of this study is to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets to two types of all ceramic materials using various surface mechanical and chemical conditioning methods. Materials and methods Sixty ceramic blocks were prepared using two types of all ceramic materials (IPS e.max and VITA Suprinity® PC) and treated with 3 surface treatments; surface etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HFA) for 2 mins; surface roughening with Sof-Lex finishing discs; and surface roughening with Sof-Lex finishing discs and etching with HFA. Metal brackets were attached to the surface of the ceramic blocks using light cure orthodontic adhesive. Samples were subjected to 2000 thermo-cycles (5–50 °C) and the SBS was assessed using Instron machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated under light microscope. Descriptive and group comparison were calculated using Two-way ANOVA, Post-hoc Tukey's and Chi-square tests and significance level set at (P < 0.05). Results: surface roughening of both ceramic materials with Sof-Lex discs and HFA resulted in a significant increase in SBS compared to other experimental groups (P < 0.05). However, VITA Suprinity ceramic prepared with Sof-Lex discs only showed the lowest SBS. The distribution of the ARI scores was significantly different between the groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion Surface preparation of all ceramic materials with Sof-Lex discs and hydrofluoric acid combination produces the highest SBS to metallic orthodontic brackets.

show abstract

Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconium Crowns

Cited by 17 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Comparison of Shear Strength of Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Depending on Surface Treatment: An In Vitro Study

The effect of various mechanical and chemical surface conditioning on the bonding of orthodontic brackets to all ceramic materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About