Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
In vitro comparison of shear bond strengths of ceramic orthodontic brackets with ceramic crowns using an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant.
Oldham, Cody C; Ballard, Richard W; Yu, Qingzhao; Kee, Edwin L; Xu, Xiaoming; Armbruster, Paul C.
Affiliation
  • Oldham CC; Private Practice of Orthodontics, 2907 Fairfield Ln., Midland, TX 79705, USA.
  • Ballard RW; LSU Health Sciences Center, Department of Orthodontics, 1100 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA. Electronic address: rball1@lsuhsc.edu.
  • Yu Q; LSU Health Sciences Center, Department of Biostatistics, 2020 Gravier Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
  • Kee EL; LSU Health Sciences Center, Department of Prosthodontics, 1100 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA.
  • Xu X; LSU Health Sciences Center, Department of Biomaterials, 1100 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA.
  • Armbruster PC; LSU Health Sciences Center, Department of Orthodontics, 1100 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA.
Int Orthod ; 18(1): 115-120, 2020 Mar.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31471241
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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ceramics / Dental Bonding / Orthodontic Brackets / Air Abrasion, Dental / Crowns / Shear Strength Language: En Journal: Int Orthod Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ceramics / Dental Bonding / Orthodontic Brackets / Air Abrasion, Dental / Crowns / Shear Strength Language: En Journal: Int Orthod Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States