Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces.
Pinho, Mónica; Manso, Maria C; Almeida, Ricardo Faria; Martin, Conchita; Carvalho, Óscar; Henriques, Bruno; Silva, Filipe; Pinhão Ferreira, Afonso; Souza, Júlio C M.
Afiliação
  • Pinho M; Faculty of Health Sciences (FCS), Universidade Fernando Pessoa (UFP), 4249-004 Porto, Portugal.
  • Manso MC; Faculty of Health Sciences (FCS), Universidade Fernando Pessoa (UFP), 4249-004 Porto, Portugal.
  • Almeida RF; Fernando Pessoa Energy, Environment and Health Research Unit (FP­ENAS), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), 4200-150 Porto, Portugal.
  • Martin C; LAQV, REQUIMTE, University of Porto (UP), 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
  • Carvalho Ó; School of Dentistry (FMDUP), University of Porto (UP), 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
  • Henriques B; School of Dentistry, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), 28040 Madrid, Spain.
  • Silva F; Center for MicroElectromechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal.
  • Pinhão Ferreira A; Center for MicroElectromechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMINHO), University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal.
  • Souza JCM; Department of Mechanical Engineering (EMC), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis 88040-090, Brazil.
Materials (Basel) ; 13(22)2020 Nov 17.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33213042
Bonding strategies within different brackets and dental materials are still a challenge concerning adhesion and dental surface damage. This study compared the shear and tensile bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metallic brackets to enamel, acrylic, and ceramic surfaces after thermal cycling. Dental surfaces were divided into three groups: enamel, ceramic, and acrylic. Each group received stainless-steel and ceramic brackets. After thermal cycling, specimens were randomly divided into two subgroups considering tensile (TBS) or shear bond strength (SBS) test. After the mechanical testing, scanning electron and optical microscopy were performed, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. The two-way ANOVA full factorial design was used to compare TBS, SBS, and ARI on the surface and bracket type (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in TBS, SBS, and ARI values per surface (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009) and type of bracket (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001). The highest mean SBS values were recorded for a ceramic bracket bonded to an acrylic surface (8.4 ± 2.3 MPa). For TBS, a ceramic bracket bonded to acrylic showed the worst performance (5.2 ± 1.8 MPa) and the highest values were found on a metallic bracket bonded to enamel. The adhesion of metallic or ceramic brackets is enough for clinical practice although the damage of the enamel surface after debonding is irreversible and harmful for the aesthetic outcome of the teeth.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Materials (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Portugal País de publicação: Suíça

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Materials (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Portugal País de publicação: Suíça