A comparative study of shear bond strength between metal and ceramic brackets and artificially aged composite restorations using different surface treatments

Department of Orthodontics and Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
The European Journal of Orthodontics (Impact Factor: 1.48). 03/2011; 34(5):610-7. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr044
Source: PubMed


This in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) between ceramic brackets (CBs) and resin composite restorations (RCRs) prepared using different surface treatments. The findings were also compared with a similar study that used stainless steel brackets (SSBs). Forty-five premolars were restored with a nano-hybrid composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) and randomly assigned to three surface treatment groups: group 1, 5 per cent hydrofluoric acid (HF); group 2, air abrasion (50 μm alumina particles); and group 3, diamond bur. Specimens were bonded with CBs (Fascination) and exposed to thermo-cycling (500 cycles). The shear force at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute was transmitted to brackets. The adhesive remnant index (ARIs) scores were recorded after bracket failure. The analysis of SBS variance (P < 0.01) and chi-square test of ARIs scores (P < 0.01) revealed significant differences among three groups tested. The SBS in group 3 (mean: 26.34 ± 4.76 MPa) and group 2 (mean: 26.68 ± 5.93 MPa) was significantly higher than group 1 (mean: 16.25 ± 5.42 MPa). The SBS was significantly higher in CBs (mean: 23.09 ± 7.19 MPa) compared to SSBs (mean: 15.56 ± 5.13 MPa). High ARIs (100 per cent) occurred in SSBs treated with a diamond bur, whereas CBs primarily failed at the resin-adhesive interface (P < 0.01). In two-thirds of the specimens (SSBs or CBs), no adhesive was left on the restoration after HF conditioning. The ARIs profile of CBs and SSBs that received surface treatments with air abrasion were similar (P > 0.05) and bond failure occurred mainly in adhesive-bracket base and resin-adhesive interfaces. The diamond bur surface treatment is recommended as a safe and cost-effective method of bonding CBs to RCRs.

Download full-text


Available from: Ali Borzabadi-Farahani,
    • "The ARI is one of the most commonly used methods of assessing the quality of adhesion between the composite and tooth as well as between the composite and bracket base.[2728] In this study, the ARI score of 3 (i.e., all adhesive left on the tooth) was found to be the most prevalent in Transbond XT (40%), followed by Rely-a-Bond (30%), Transbond Plus with Transbond XT (15%), and Xeno V with Xeno Ortho (10%). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of stainless steel (SS) orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. Materials and Methods: Eighty newly extracted premolars were bonded to 0.022 SS brackets (Ormco, Scafati, Italy) and equally divided into four groups based on adhesive used: (1) Rely-a-Bond (self-cure adhesive, Reliance Orthodontic Product, Inc., Illinois, USA), (2) Transbond XT (light-cure adhesive, 3M Unitek, CA, USA), (3) Transbond Plus (sixth generation self-etch primer, 3M Unitek, CA, USA) with Transbond XT (4) Xeno V (seventh generation self-etch primer, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) with Xeno Ortho (light-cure adhesive, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) adhesive. Brackets were debonded with a universal testing machine (Model No. 3382 Instron Corp., Canton, Mass, USA). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recordedIn addition, the conditioned enamel surfaces were observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: Transbond XT (15.49 MPa) attained the highest bond strength. Self-etching adhesives (Xeno V, 13.51 MPa; Transbond Plus, 11.57 MPa) showed clinically acceptable SBS values and almost clean enamel surface after debonding. The analysis of variance (F = 11.85, P < 0.0001) and Chi-square (χ2 = 18.16, P < 0.05) tests revealed significant differences among groups. The ARI score of 3 (i.e., All adhesives left on the tooth) to be the most prevalent in Transbond XT (40%), followed by Rely-a-Bond (30%), Transbond Plus with Transbond XT (15%), and Xeno V with Xeno Ortho (10%). Under SEM, enamel surfaces after debonding of the brackets appeared porous when an acid-etching process was performed on the surfaces of Rely-a-Bond and Transbond XT, whereas with self-etching primers enamel presented smooth and almost clean surfaces (Transbond Plus and Xeno V group). Conclusion: All adhesives yielded SBS values higher than the recommended bond strength (5.9-7–8 MPa), Seventh generation self-etching primer Xeno V with Xeno Ortho showed clinically acceptable SBS and the least amount of residual adhesive left on the enamel surface after debonding.
    04/2014; 3(2):29-33. DOI:10.4103/2278-0203.132892
  • Source
    • "The mean SBS of the ceramic bracket group was found to be superior as compared to that of the metal bracket group. This finding was in agreement to those of previous studies [6] [16] [17]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: This study has compared the Shear Bond Strengths (SBSs) of ceramic brackets and metal brackets. Materials and method: Forty freshly extracted, human maxillary first premolars were selected for bonding. They were equally bonded with ceramic brackets (Transcend series 6000) and metal brackets (Mini Dynalock Straight wire brackets). A no - mix orthodontic adhesive system was used. Their shear bond strengths were measured by using the Instron universal machine. Results: The mean bond strength of the ceramic brackets was 20.68 ± 3.89 Mpa and that of the metal brackets was 12.15 ± 1.32 MPa. Conclusion: The shear bond strength of the ceramic brackets was found to be superior than that of the metal brackets.
    07/2013; 7(7):1495-7. DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2013/5435.3172
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of ceramic brackets with different base designs using a 473-nm diode-pumped solid-state (DPSS) laser to test its usefulness as a light source. A total of 180 caries-free human premolars were divided into four groups according to the base designs: microcrystalline, crystalline particle (CP), dovetail, and mesh. For each base design, teeth were divided into three different subgroups for light curing using three different light-curing units (LCUs) (quartz-tungsten-halogen unit, light-emitting diode unit, and a DPSS laser of 473 nm). Applied light intensities for the DPSS laser and the other LCUs were approximately 630 and 900 mW/cm(2), respectively. Stainless steel brackets with a mesh design served as controls. The failure modes of debonded brackets were scored using ARI. As a result, brackets bonded using the DPSS laser had the highest SBS values (16.5-27.3 MPa) among the LCUs regardless of base design. Regarding base designs, the CP groups showed the highest SBS values (22.9-27.3 MPa) regardless of LCU. Furthermore, stainless steel brackets with a mesh design had the lowest SBS values regardless of LCU. In many cases, brackets bonded using the DPSS laser had higher ARI scores and had more adhesive on their bases than on tooth surfaces. The study shows that the 473-nm DPSS laser has considerable potential for bonding ceramic brackets at lower light intensities than the other light-curing units examined.
    Lasers in Medical Science 11/2012; 28(6). DOI:10.1007/s10103-012-1227-8 · 2.49 Impact Factor
Show more