The lingual enamel morphology and bracket shear bond strength influenced by Nd:YAG laser and aluminum oxide sandblasting preconditioning

Lopes, Mônica Schäffer; Pereira, Daísa L.; Mota, Cláudia Cristina Brainer de Oliveira; Amaral, Marcello Magri; Zezéll, Denise Maria; Gomes, Anderson S. L.

doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03418-x

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 29 30 ] Different values are reported as optimum for SBS[ 1 ], ranging from 5.9 to 7.8 MPa. [ 5 6 ] However, based on the findings of the present study, which was focused on the rebond process of orthodontic brackets, the mean SBS (12.24129.440 MPa) is different from the mentioned optimum value. Meanwhile, the reported optimum values are a minimum, and there is no consensus in this regard.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 59%

Comparison of shear bond strength of rebonded stainless steel brackets with three different enamel surface conditioning methods

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 59%

Comparison of shear bond strength of rebonded stainless steel brackets with three different enamel surface conditioning methods

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, the adhesion surfaces should be analyzed before bonding to evaluate the necessity of previous conditioning [17]. Moreover, the acid etching of the enamel surfaces was analyzed in order to increase the SBS of multibracket appliances; however, no variations were shown on the lingual surfaces after preconditioning with laser and sandblasting [18]. On the other hand, a successful adhesion procedure between the enamel surface and the inner surface of multibracket appliances was achieved by etching with 37% orthophosphoric acid for 10 s, increasing significantly the SBS in comparison with self-etching adhesion procedures [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Area and Volume of Remaining Cement and Enamel after Removal and Polishing of Buccal or Lingual Multibracket Appliances

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to compare the area and volume of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding. Further, the area and volume of cement remaining and the area and volume of enamel were also analyzed using a morphometric digital measurement technique. Ten buccal and 10 lingual multibracket appliances were cemented in 20 extracted teeth embedded into an epoxy resin model simulating a dental arch. The models were scanned before bonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, after debonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, and after polishing the remaining cement. Afterwards, the standard tessellation language (STL) digital files were aligned, segmented, and realigned by using engineer morphometry software. A comparative analysis was performed using Student’s t test statistical analysis. Lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p < 0.001) less area (7.07 ± 4.85 mm2) and volume (0.87 ± 1.34 mm3) of remaining cement than the area (21.99 ± 4.18 mm2) and volume (p = 0.002) (3.48 ± 0.96 mm3) of buccal appliances. Moreover, lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p = 0.001) less area (4.48 ± 3.08 mm2) and volume (0.13 ± 0.15 mm3) of remaining cement after polishing than the area (12.22 ± 5.98 mm2) and volume (p = 0.004) (0.70 ± 0.56 mm3) of buccal appliances. Lingual multibracket appliance therapy leads to less area and volume of cement remaining after multibracket appliance debonding and less area and volume of cement remaining after cement polishing than buccal multibracket appliance therapy; however, the area and volume of enamel removed after cement polishing were similar between both lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies.

show abstract

“…Recently, studies about lasers have focused on the effectiveness of laser treatments on bonding of labial brackets to surfaces ( 14 , 15 ). There is only one study in the literature evaluating the effects of laser (Nd:YAG) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of lingual brackets ( 16 ). Thus, the present study aimed to decide an ideal surface treatment method for bonding of lingual brackets to resin-matrix and lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Er,Cr:YSGG laser on shear bond strength of orthodontic lingual brackets to CAD/CAM ceramic systems

Kaygisiz¹,

Eğilmez²,

Ergün³

et al. 2023

eor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the bond strength of lingual brackets bonded to resin-matrix and lithium disilicate based-ceramic crowns following various surface treatments. Materials and methods: Sixty ceramic crowns (IPS Emax and Cerasmart) were fabricated by CAD/CAM. Er,Cr:YSGG laser, sandblasting with aluminium oxide and hydrofluoric acid treatment effects on ceramics was tested (n=10/group). A light-cure orthodontic adhesive was used to bond lingual brackets to the ceramic surfaces. Bond strengths of the brackets to ceramics were assessed by shear bond test. The remnant adhesive on bracket and ceramic surfaces was inspected with a light microscope and adhesive remnant index scores were recorded. The data were analyzed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Mann–Whitney U-test. Results: Cerasmart ceramic specimens showed lower shear bond strength values than IPS Emax ceramic specimens (p<0.05). The statistical analysis of the surface treatment groups regarding bond strength were ranked as follows: Laser ≤ Hydrofluoric acid ≤ Sandblasting (p=0.058). While laser-treated Cerasmart ceramic group displayed the lowest SBS (9.39 MPa), hydrofluoric acid-treated IPS Emax group had the highest (16.8 MPa) bond strength value. Conclusion: The use of Er,Cr:YSGG lasers for etching of CAD-CAM ceramics could be a promising alternative to “conventional techniques”, to improve bond strength of lingual brackets to IPS Emax and Cerasmart ceramics.

show abstract

The lingual enamel morphology and bracket shear bond strength influenced by Nd:YAG laser and aluminum oxide sandblasting preconditioning

Cited by 7 publications

References 43 publications

Comparison of shear bond strength of rebonded stainless steel brackets with three different enamel surface conditioning methods

Comparison of shear bond strength of rebonded stainless steel brackets with three different enamel surface conditioning methods

Area and Volume of Remaining Cement and Enamel after Removal and Polishing of Buccal or Lingual Multibracket Appliances

The Effects of Er,Cr:YSGG laser on shear bond strength of orthodontic lingual brackets to CAD/CAM ceramic systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About