RESUMO
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to translucent dental zirconia samples which are anatomically accurate and treated with various surface treatments. METHODS: This in vitro study included 156 samples from 3 brands of high-translucent zirconia split into a control group and 4 surface treatment groups: 9.6% hydrofluoric acid etching, 50-micron aluminium oxide particle air abrasion, and 30-micron tribochemical silica coating (TBS) particle air abrasion with and without silane application. After surface treatment, all groups were primed with a 10-MDP primer and bonded to metal orthodontic brackets. Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested and results were compared between all groups. Data analysis consisted of a balanced two-factor factorial ANOVA, a Shapiro-Wilks test, and a non-parametric permutation test. The significance level was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Among all surface treatments, aluminium oxide particle abrasion produced significantly higher SBS (P≤0.002). Lava™ Plus zirconia samples had significantly higher SBS than Cercon® samples (P<0.0001). TBS surface treatment produced significantly higher SBS on Lava™ Plus samples than it did on the other zirconia brands (P=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that mechanical abrasion using aluminium oxide in combination with a 10-MDP primer creates a higher SBS to high-translucent zirconia than the bond created by tribochemical silica coating. Also, there was no significant difference in ARI regardless of zirconia brand or surface preparation.
Assuntos
Colagem Dentária , Metacrilatos , Braquetes Ortodônticos , Zircônio , Humanos , Cimentos de Resina/química , Abrasão Dental por Ar , Propriedades de Superfície , Resistência ao Cisalhamento , Dióxido de Silício/química , Óxido de Alumínio/química , Teste de Materiais , Análise do Estresse DentárioRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if there are differences between the shear bond strengths of 3 types of ceramic brackets when bonded to different ceramic substrates using an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Substrate groups consisting of thirty-six lithium disilicate (e.max® CAD) samples and thirty-six lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO) samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a left maxillary central incisor. The surface of all samples was prepared with an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant protocol. Each substrate group was split into three test groups (n=12). Each test group was bonded using a different brand of ceramic orthodontic bracket. Shear bond strength (SBS) testing was conducted and the mean SBS values for each group were calculated and recorded in MPa. An Adhesive Resin Index (ARI) score was also assigned to each sample to assess the location of bond failure. RESULTS: Mean SBS of the e.max® CAD groups were significantly less than the CELTRA® DUO groups. Symetri brackets showed significantly higher shear bond strengths to both substrates than both of the other brackets tested. ARI scores of the e.max® CAD groups were significantly less than the CELTRA® DUO groups. CONCLUSION: The Symetri bracket was the only bracket that was effective for both substrates (mean SBS>6mPa). The Etch Master protocol does not appear effective for e.max® CAD.
Assuntos
Abrasão Dental por Ar , Cerâmica/química , Coroas , Colagem Dentária/métodos , Braquetes Ortodônticos , Resistência ao Cisalhamento , Abrasão Dental por Ar/métodos , Óxido de Alumínio , Análise do Estresse Dentário , Humanos , Teste de Materiais , Propriedades de SuperfícieRESUMO
AIM: The objective of the present study was to determine which of six bonding protocols yielded a clinically acceptable shear bond strength (SBS) of metal orthodontic brackets to CAD/CAM lithium disilicate porcelain restorations. A secondary aim was to determine which bonding protocol produced the least surface damage at debond. METHODS: Sixty lithium disilicate samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a mandibular first molar using a CEREC CAD/CAM machine. The samples were split into six test groups, each of which received different mechanical/chemical pretreatment protocols to roughen the porcelain surface prior to bonding a molar orthodontic attachment. Shear bond strength testing was conducted using an Instron machine. The mean, maximum, minimal, and standard deviation SBS values for each sample group including an enamel control were calculated. A t-test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between the groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in SBS values, with the exception of surface roughening with a green stone prior to HFA and silane treatment. This protocol yielded slightly higher bond strength which was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Chemical treatment alone with HFA/silane yielded SBS values within an acceptable clinical range to withstand forces applied by orthodontic treatment and potentially eliminates the need to mechanically roughen the ceramic surface.