Abstract
Objectives Due to the high demand for all-ceramic restorations, monolithic zirconia restorations are nowadays frequently used. With the demand for adult orthodontic treatments, orthodontists need to be mindful of the quality of their brackets bonding to this type of material, as it requires special conditioning. This study aimed to compare different surface treatments of zirconia when bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets. The objectives are to compare the shear bond strength; the amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of the material; the incidence of adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failures; and the occurrence of zirconia fractures. Materials and Methods Forty monolithic blocks of zirconia of a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm were prepared and randomly divided into two groups ( n = 20): metallic or ceramic brackets. Each group was subsequently divided into two subgroups ( n = 10) depending on the surface preparation (laser treatment or airborne particle abrasion): SMB (airborne particle abrasion, metal bracket), SCB (airborne particle abrasion, ceramic bracket), LMB (laser; metal bracket), and LCB (laser, ceramic bracket). The samples were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index and the occurrence of zirconia fractures and different types of failures were assessed by optical and electron microscopy. Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. Results The differences were significant between the metallic (SMB, LMB) and ceramic (SCB, LCB) bracket groups with regard to shear bond strength, with respectively 23.29 ± 5.34 MPa, 21.59 ± 4.03 MPa, 20.06 ± 4.05 MPa, and 17.55 ± 3.88 MPa. In terms of surface treatment, no statistical differences were found between the different groups. Conclusion Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia. The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength.
Highlights
Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia
The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength
The SMB group showed the highest shear bond strength values, whereas the lowest was that of the LCB group (Er:YAG laser and ceramic bracket)
Summary
Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Cetik et al 151 dimensional stability, and high mechanical strength. It presents a Young’s modulus of 210 GPa, which is similar to that of stainless steel alloy.[1,2] Its high physical properties come from a phenomenon called “transformation toughening.”[1,2] According to Sailer et al,[3] if an all-ceramic FPD has to be placed in the posterior region, the use of zirconia is recommended. One alternative to avoid these chipping is to use nonveneering or monolithic zirconia restorations.[4,5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
