Influence of different surface treatment on bonding of metal and ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials.

BACKGROUND: Developing efficient bonding techniques for orthodontic brackets and all-ceramic materials continues to pose a clinical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strengths (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets to various all-ceramic CAD-CAM materials, such as lithium disilicate CAD (LDS-CAD), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS), and 5YTZP zirconia after different surface treatments and thermal cycling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The samples were divided into two groups to be bonded with ceramic and metal lower incisor brackets. Each group was subdivided into a control group devoid of any surface treatment, 10% HF acid (HFA) etching, ceramic etch & prime (MEP), Al2O3 air abrasion, and medium grit diamond bur roughening. After surface treatment, brackets were bonded with composite resin cement, thermal cycled, and tested for shear bond strength. The failed surfaces were evaluated with a digital microscope to analyse the type of failure. The data were statistically analysed using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The highest mean bond strengths were found with HFA etching in LDS-CAD (13.17 ± 0.26 MPa) and ZLS (12.85 0.52 MPa). Diamond bur recorded the lowest mean bond strength roughening across all the ceramic groups. There were significant differences in mean shear bond values per surface treatment (p < 0.001) and ceramic materials. CONCLUSION: Among the surface treatment protocols evaluated, HFA etching and MEP surface treatment resulted in enhanced bond strength of both ceramic and metal brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials.

Effectiveness of Porcelain Polishing Methods on the Roughness and Color Stability of CAD-CAM Ceramics after Orthodontic Bracket Debonding.

Increased utilization of all ceramic restorations for aesthetic consideration in combination with routine adult orthodontic practice has led to numerous clinical challenges. Obtaining adequate bond strength between the orthodontic bracket and all-ceramic restoration and damage to the ceramic surface during the bracket debonding procedure needs to be better understood. This study analyzed the surface texture and color change of glazed and bracket-debonded ceramic CAD-CAM materials and the efficiency of porcelain polishing systems in restoring surface morphology and color. A total of 30 rectangular test specimens from each lithium disilicate CAD (LD-CAD), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PICN), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS), and 5YTZP zirconia (5YZP) were prepared. The ceramic samples were embedded within acrylic resin, and baseline surface roughness and color were recorded using an optical profilometer and a reflected color spectrophotometer. The porcelain samples were bonded with lower incisor ceramic brackets. The samples were thermocycled 2000 times between 5 and 55 °C. Afterward, the brackets were peeled with bracket-removing pliers. The resin adhesive from the debonded surface was eliminated with tungsten carbide bur, and samples were randomly divided into three subgroups of (n = 10) to be polished with Diapol-twist (DT), a Keramik-Politur 4313B Komet polishing kit (KK), and a Horico diamond polisher (HDP). The polished surface roughness and color were recorded. The data were statistically analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance at p < 0.05. The debonded porcelain surfaces across the groups displayed significantly higher mean surface roughness (Ra) compared to glazed surfaces. The debonded 5YZP showed the least Ra at 0.661 (0.09), while the highest Ra was recorded by PICN at 4.057 (0.82). All of the polishing systems evaluated in the study significantly reduced the surface roughness. However, they were unsuccessful in regaining the surface topography of the glazed surface. The flexible discs (DT) produced the smoothest surface, followed by the diamond-impregnated rubber points (KK). Unpolished porcelain surfaces had a discernable mean color difference from glazed surfaces. Polished surfaces from the different polishing systems among the all-ceramic groups achieved a clinically acceptable mean color difference. Polishing debonded rough porcelain surfaces is imperative, and flexible discs performed better in all of the tested CAD-CAM ceramic materials.