Fracture toughness and hardness of in-office, 3D-printed ceramic brackets.

OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is a promising manufacturing technique for fabricating ceramic brackets. The aim of this research was to assess fundamental mechanical properties of in-office, 3D printed ceramic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D-printed zirconia brackets, commercially available polycrystalline alumina ceramic brackets (Clarity, 3 M St. Paul, MN) and 3D-printed customized polycrystalline alumina ceramic ones (LightForce™, Burlington, Massachusetts) were included in this study. Seven 3D printed zirconia brackets and equal number of ceramic ones from each manufacturer underwent metallographic grinding and polishing followed by Vickers indentation testing. Hardness (HV) and fracture toughness (K1c) were estimated by measuring impression average diagonal length and crack length, respectively. After descriptive statistics calculation, group differences were analysed with 1 Way ANOVA and Holm Sidak post hoc multiple comparison test at significance level α = .05. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found among the materials tested with respect to hardness and fracture toughness. The 3D-printed zirconia proved to be less hard (1261 ± 39 vs 2000 ± 49 vs 1840 ± 38) but more resistant to crack propagation (K1c = 6.62 ± 0.61 vs 5.30 ± 0.48 vs 4.44 ± 0.30 MPa m1/2 ) than the alumina brackets (Clarity and Light Force respectivelty). Significant differences were observed between the 3D printed and the commercially available polycrystalline alumina ceramic brackets but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Under the limitations of this study, the 3D printed zirconia bracket tested is characterized by mechanical properties associated with advantageous orthodontic fixed appliances traits regarding clinically relevant parameters.

Effect of aging on color, gloss and surface roughness of CAD/CAM composite materials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of aging procedures on color, gloss and surface roughness of CAD/CAM composite materials. METHODS: 6 CAD/CAM composite materials (Brilliant CRIOS, Cerasmart, Lava Ultimate, Tetric CAD, Shofu Block HC, Grandio Blocs) were tested. 10 CAD/CAM fabricated specimens of each material polished according to manufacturers' recommendations, were subjected to one of the following aging procedures; immersion in coffee (30 days, 37οC), water thermocycling (5000 cycles, 5-55 °C) and photoaging (150,000 kJ/m2). Color, gloss and surface roughness measurements were performed before and after aging and the respective changes were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis tests, paired t-tests, one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used for statistical analysis (a = 0.05). RESULTS: Color changes ranged from 3.03 to 4.13 after coffee immersion, from 1.33 to 2.55 after thermocycling and from 1.02 to 2.75 after photoaging. No statistically significant differences for ΔE*ab were found among materials after coffee immersion and thermocycling (p>0.05). Gloss changes ranged from -5.7 to -1.6 GU after coffee immersion, from -2.3 to 0.1 GU after thermocycling and from -4.4 to 0.5 GU after photoaging. No significant differences in gloss changes were found among materials after aging (p>0.05). Tetric CAD demonstrated the significantly lower gloss and the higher surface roughness after polishing. Except for gloss after thermocycling, aging procedures caused significant alteration of gloss and surface roughness parameters from baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Aging procedures caused perceptible but acceptable color changes and small but visible gloss changes, while surface roughness parameters of the tested CAD/CAM composite materials were significantly affected by aging. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Aging procedures affected CAD/CAM composite materials indicating that these materials may be prone to color and surface alterations in the oral environment that could compromise the esthetics and the performance of the restorations. Clinical studies are needed to investigate the long-term behavior of the newly introduced CAD/CAM materials.

Surface and interfacial analysis of sandblasted and acid-etched enamel for bonding orthodontic adhesives.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to characterize enamel surfaces treated with sandblasting, acid etching, or sandblasting followed by acid etching for bonding of orthodontic adhesives and to evaluate the enamel-adhesive interfaces. METHODS: Buccal premolar surfaces were sandblasted, acid etched, sandblasted and subsequently acid etched, or left intact. For 2 treatments (acid etching and sandblasting plus acid etching), orthodontic brackets were bonded for resin infiltration assessment. Surface roughness and enamel loss were evaluated by optical profilometry, and surface morphology and elemental composition were examined by low-vacuum scanning electron microscope/energy dispersive x-ray analysis, whereas interfacial resin infiltration was assessed by high-vacuum scanning electron microscopy. Differences were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests or t tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The sandblasted and sandblasted-plus-acid-etched groups showed higher surface roughness values than the acid-etched group. Sandblasting plus acid etching removed more enamel than did sandblasting or acid etching alone. Sandblasting plus acid etching demonstrated a more uniform type I etching pattern, without alumina particles implanted in the enamel, unlike sandblasting. No difference was found in the extent of resin infiltration between the bonded acid-etched and sandblasted-plus-acid-etched groups, although the latter showed improved infiltration characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Sandblasting-plus-acid-etching treatment creates a rough enamel surface, typical of type I etching, with the greatest extent of enamel loss, free of alumina interferences, demonstrating the same extent of resin infiltration as acid etching, but exhibiting improved infiltration quality.

Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the combined effects of material type, surface treatment, and thermocycling on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to materials used for the fabrication of provisional crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four materials were included in this study (ProTemp, Trim Plus, Trim II, and Superpont C+B). Sixty cylindrical specimens (1 × 3 cm) were prepared from each material and equally divided into three groups. The first group was ground with silica carbide paper, the second was polished with pumice, and the last group was sandblasted with 50-µm aluminum oxide particles. Stainless-steel maxillary central incisor brackets (Victory Series, 3M) were bonded to the provisional material specimens with Transbond XT light-cured composite resin, and half of the specimens from each group were thermocycled 500 times in 5°C and 55°C water baths. Then the brackets were debonded with shear testing, and the results were statistically analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple-comparison tests at α  =  0.05. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was also identified. RESULTS: Before and after thermocycling, ProTemp materials showed the highest shear bond strength with orthodontic brackets (10.3 and 13.1 MPa, respectively). The statistical analysis indicated an interaction among the three independent variables (P < .05) and statistically significant differences in bond strength among provisional materials (P < .001), surface treatments (P < .001), and thermocycling (P < .05). According to the ARI, most groups demonstrated adhesive failure. CONCLUSIONS: The provisional material type, surface treatment, and artificial aging have a significant effect on bond strength. Sandblasting treatment exerts a beneficial effect on shear bond strength.

Effect of sandblasting conditions on alumina retention in representative dental alloys.

This study determined the effect of grit size and application pressure on alumina fragment retention after sandblasting in representative dental alloys. Plastic rectangular patterns (25×3×0.6 mm, n=240) were divided equally into four groups and cast with Au-Pt, Ni-Cr, Co-Cr alloys and grade-II cp-Ti. The specimens from each alloy were then divided into 12 subgroups. Each subgroup was then sandblasted with one of the 12 possible combinations of grit size (50, 100 and 250 microns) and propulsion pressure (0.15, 0.30, 0.45 and 0.60 MPa), and their surfaces imaged and analyzed using SEM/EDS analysis. The Al composition was statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-test. Materials tested showed a substantial amount of retained alumina fragments, the extent of which was dependent on the grit size and propulsion pressure applied for tested alloys except cp-Ti. Importantly, sandblasting conditions different from those proposed by the manufacturers achieved lower levels of retained alumina fragments.

Characterization of retrieved orthodontic miniscrew implants.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to characterize the morphologic, structural, and compositional alterations and to assess any hardness changes in used orthodontic miniscrew implants. METHODS: Eleven miniscrew implants (Aarhus Anchorage System, Medicon eG, Tuttlingen, Germany) placed in 5 patients were retrieved after successful service of 3.5 to 17.5 months; none showed signs of mobility or failure. These implants, and brand-, type-, and size-matched specimens as controls, were subjected to multi-technique characterization. RESULTS: Optical microscopy indicated loss of gloss with variable discoloration. Scanning electron microscopy and x-ray microanalysis showed morphologic alteration of the miniscrew implant surfaces with integuments formed on the surface. The materials precipitated on the surfaces were sodium, potassium, chlorine, iron, calcium, and phosphorus from the contact of the implant with biologic fluids such as blood and exudates, forming sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and calcium-phosphorus precipitates. The composition of the implant was similar to that of a titanium alloy. X-ray microtomography analysis showed no bulk structure alterations. Vickers microhardness testing showed no increased bulk or surface hardness of the retrieved specimens compared with the controls, excluding the possibility of strain-hardening phenomena as a result of self-tapping and self-drilling placement and related loading conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Used titanium-alloy miniscrew implants have morphologic and surface structural alterations including adsorption of an integument that is calcified as a result of contact of the implants with biologic fluids. Randomly organized osseointegration islets on these smooth titanium-alloy miniscrew surfaces might be enhanced by the extended period of retention in alveolar bone in spite of the smooth surface and immediate loading pattern of these implants.

Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess critical properties of orthodontic aesthetic bracket materials. METHOD: Samples of polycarbonate, poly(oxy)methylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), and polycrystalline alumina raw material used from bracket manufacturing were subjected to: (a) profilometry for the determination of Ra, Rq, Rmax and Rz roughness parameters; (b) Vickers hardness (HV50) testing; and (c) wear resistance determined by the scratch test. The results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test at alpha=0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: The UHMWP and alumina specimens showed the highest roughness values for all parameters. The highest hardness, amongst the polymeric raw materials, was obtained from the poly(oxy)methylene appliances. Differences were also noted between the polycarbonate raw material of different manufacturers implying an effect from the manufacturing process. With the exception of alumina, the highest wear resistance was found for the poly(oxy)methylene specimens. SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this study reveal the variability among aesthetic plastic bracket raw materials, their reduced hardness and wear resistance relative to alumina as well as the inappropriateness of UHMWPE as alternative bracket material.