Shear Bond Strength of Metal and Ceramic Brackets to Composite Using Single Bond and Universal Adhesive

Hoda Pouyanfar; Amin Golshah; Matin Shekarbeigi

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2020.3118

Authors

Hoda Pouyanfar Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
Amin Golshah Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
Matin Shekarbeigi Student Research Committee, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.3118

Keywords:

Shear strength, Single bond, Universal adhesive, Metal bracket, Ceramic bracket

Abstract

AIM: This study aimed to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to composite restorations using single bond 5^thgeneration bonding agent and G-Premio Bond universal adhesive.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro, experimental study, 60 sound extracted human premolars were veneered with composite and were then randomly divided into four groups (n = 15) of Single Bond + Transbond XT + metal brackets, universal adhesive + Transbond XT+ metal brackets, Single Bond + Transbond XT + ceramic brackets, and universal adhesive + Transbond XT + ceramic brackets. Twenty-four hours after thermocycling, the SBS of brackets was measured using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was also determined under a stereomicroscope. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the groups (p <0.05).

RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the mean SBS of ceramic and metal brackets or between the two bonding agents (p > 0.05). The interaction effect of type of bracket and type of bonding agent on SBS was not significant (p > 0.05). ARI score I had the highest frequency in Single Bond + Metal bracket group. The highest frequency of ARI score V was noted in the Single Bond + Ceramic bracket group. A comparison of ARI scores of metal bracket groups showed a significant difference between single bond and universal adhesive (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION: Both adhesives can provide adequate SBS for the bonding of metal and ceramic brackets to composite restorations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

TÃ¼rkkahraman H, KÃ¼Ã§Ã¼kesmen HC. Porcelain surface-conditioning techniques and the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(5):440-3. https://doi. org/10.1093/ejo/cjl026 PMid:16916898

Stella JP, Oliveira AB, Nojima LI, Marquezan M. Four chemical methods of porcelain conditioning and their influence over bond strength and surface integrity. Dent Press J Orthod. 2015;20(4):51-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.4.051- 056.oar PMid:26352845

Huang TH, Kao CT. The shear bond strength of composite brackets on porcelain teeth. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23(4):433-9. PMid:11544794

Trakyali G, Malkondu O, KazazoÄŸlu E, Arun T. Effects of different silanes and acid concentrations on bond strength of brackets to porcelain surfaces. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(4):402-6. https://doi. org/10.1093/ejo/cjn118 PMid:19339674

Akova T, Yoldas O, Toroglu MS, Uysal H. Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(5):630-7. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.021 PMid:16286211

Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W, Ozcan M. Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(5):540-6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003. s0889540602569110 PMid:12750673

Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. USA: Quintessence Publishing; 2006.

Loguercio AD, MuÃ±oz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Hass V, Reis A, PerdigÃ£o J. Does active application of universal adhesives to enamel in self-etch mode improve their performance? J Dent. 2015;43(9):1060-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.005 PMid:25908573

Alex G. Universal adhesives: The next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(1):15-26. PMid:25822403

MuÃ±oz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P, Hass V, Reis A, Campanha NH, et al. In vitro longevity of bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent. 2015;4(3):282-92. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-055-l PMid:25405904

Luque-Martinez IV, PerdigÃ£o J, MuÃ±oz MA, Sezinando A, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Effects of solvent evaporation time on immediate adhesive properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1126-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dental.2014.07.002 PMid:25139815

Reddy YG, Sharma R, Singh A, Agrawal V, Agrawal V, Chaturvedi S. The shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets: An in-vitro comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(7):1495-7. PMid:23998105

Oliver RG, Pal AD. Distortion of edgewise orthodontic brackets associated with different methods of debonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96(1):65-71. https://doi. org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90231-x PMid:2665474

van Waveren Hogervorst WL, Feilzer AJ, Prahl-Andersen B. The air-abrasion technique versus the conventional acid-etching technique: A quantification of surface enamel loss and a comparison of shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(1):20-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0889-5406(00)70244-7 PMid:10629516

Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of Scotchbond multipurpose and maleic acid as alternative methods of bonding orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(5):498-501. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70286-5 PMid:9155808

Buyuk SK, Cantekin K, Demirbuga S, Ali Ozturk M. Are the low-shrinking composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Eur J Dent. 2013;7(3):284-8. https://doi. org/10.4103/1305-7456.115411 PMid:24926207

Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Romeo A, de la Higuera B, GarcÃa-Godoy F. Bond strength of orthodontic brackets using different light and self-curing cements. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(1):56-63. PMid:12607856

Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97(2):121-5. https://doi. org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70084-p PMid:2137284

Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: The relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod. 1976;3(2):91-5. https://doi. org/10.1179/bjo.3.2.91 PMid:779822

Lopez JI. Retentive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod. 1980;77(6):669-78. https://doi. org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90158-x PMid:6992590

Endo T, Ozoe R, Shinkai K, Shimomura J, Katoh Y, Shimooka S. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to deciduous and permanent teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(2):198-202. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.045 PMid:18675200

Pannes DD, Bailey DK, Thompson JY, Pietz DM. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain: A comparison of bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(1):66-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/ mpr.2003.63 PMid:12589289

BarcelÃ³ Santana HF, HernÃ¡ndez Medina R, Acosta Torres SL, SÃ¡nchez Herrera LM, FernÃ¡ndez Pedrero AJ, OrtÃz GonzÃ¡lez R. Evaluation of bond strength of metal brackets by a resin to ceramic surfaces. J Clin Dent. 2006;17(1):5-9. PMid:16838874

Fuhrmann R, Gutknecht N, Magunski A, Lampert F, Diedrich P. Conditioning of enamel with Nd: YAG and CO2 dental laser systems and with phosphoric acid. An in-vitro comparison of the tensile bond strength and the morphology of the enamel surface. J Orofac Orthop. 2001;62(5):375-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/ pl00001943 PMid:11590826

Perdigao J, Swift E, Walter R. Fundamental concepts of enamel and dentin adhesion. In: Sturdevantâ€™s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. London, United Kingdom: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. p. 114-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/ b978-0-323-47833-5.00005-8

Matasa C. Do adhesives and sealants really seal the bracketsâ€™ pad? II. surface tension. Orthod Mat Insider. 2003;15:4-8.

Cavalcante LM, Erhardt MC, Bedran-de-Castro AK, Pimenta LA, Ambrosano GM. Influence of different tests used to measure the bond strength to dentin of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 2006;19(1):37-40. PMid:16555656

PerdigÃ£o J, Gomes G, Gondo R, Fundingsland JW. In vitro bonding performance of all-in-one adhesives. Part I microtensile bond strengths. J Adhes Dent. 2006;8(6):367-73. PMid:17243593

Yazici AR, Celik C, OzgÃ¼naltay G, DayangaÃ§ B. Bond strength of different adhesive systems to dental hard tissues. Oper Dent. 2007;32(2):166-72. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-49 PMid:17427826

Isolan CP, Valente LL, MÃ¼nchow EA, Basso GR, Pimentel AH, Schwantz JK, et al. Bond strength of a universal bonding agent and other contemporary dental adhesives applied on enamel dentin composite and porcelain. Appl Adhes Sci. 2014;2:25-33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40563-014-0025-x

Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 3: More breakdowns of selected variables. J Clin Orthod. 2009;43(1):22-33. PMid: 19276571

Fernandez L, Canut JA. In vitro comparison of the retention capacity of new aesthetic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(1):71-7. PMid: 10191580

Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: Something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1997;3(3):178-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80068-0 PMid:9573879

Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104(2):170-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406 (05)81007-8 PMid:8338070

Sinha PK, Nanda RS. The effect of different bonding and debonding techniques on debonding ceramic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(2):132-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70237-3 PMid:9267223

Arici S, Minors C. The force levels required to mechanically debond ceramic brackets: An in vitro comparative study. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(3):327-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.3.327 PMid:10920565

Blalock KA, Powers JM. Retention capacity of the bracket bases of new esthetic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(6):596-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889- 5406 (95)70102-8 PMid:7771364

Bishara SE. Ceramic brackets and the need to develop national standards. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117:595-7. PMid:10799127

Ireland AJ, Sherriff M. Use of an adhesive resin for bonding orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1994;16(1):27-34. https:// doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.1.27 PMid:8181547

Romano FL, Tavares SW, Nouer DF, Consani S, Borges de AraÃºjo Magnani MB. Shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(5):849-53. PMid:16285044

Woolaver CJ. The Shear/Peel Bond Strengths of Orthodontic Attachments to Composite Resin; 2001. Available from: http:// www.hdl.handle.net/1993/19554. 42. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Can S, Drost C. In-vitro study of the adhesive strengths of brackets on metals, ceramic and composite. Part 2: Bonding to porcelain and composite resin. J Orofac Orthop. 1996;57(3):132-41. PMid:86551086