Abstract
ObjectiveThe study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods.Material and methodsLeucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi2 test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined.ResultsLEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level.ConclusionsMEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary.Clinical relevanceThere is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.
Highlights
The number of adult patients asking for orthodontic treatment is steadily increasing [1, 2]
After aging of 500 thermal cycles, Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP) pretreatment (17.7 MPa) resulted in lower shear bond strength (SBS) values compared to hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF) (33.7 MPa, p = 0.005), CoJet (40.6 MPa, p < 0.001), and silicium carbide (SiC) (35.3 MPa, p < 0.001; Table 3)
The intrarater and the interrater reliability adhesive remnant index (ARI) assessment were both almost perfect (κ = 0.85) [39]. The aim of this in-vitro investigation was to test the SBS of ceramic brackets bonded to two different types of silicate ceramic after four different pretreatment methods and after different aging methods
Summary
The number of adult patients asking for orthodontic treatment is steadily increasing [1, 2]. The recommended bond strength in the literature is 5–10 MPa [3] In those cases, where patients present with existing dental restorations, the orthodontist needs a reliable treatment protocol. Clinical Oral Investigations for bonding brackets to artificial surfaces, in many cases tooth colored restorations such as reinforced (lithium silicate, LiSi) and low reinforced silicate (leucite, LEU) ceramics. Different pretreatment methods, which are used in restorative and prosthetic dentistry for intraoral reparation of silicate ceramic restorations without the application of any acids, are viable options for orthodontic purposes. These comprise mechanical roughening of the surface with silicium carbide (SiC) grinders or chemical/mechanical pretreatment with intraoral silicate coating (CoJet) [30,31,32]. The assumed hypotheses were that (1) the pretreatment of the silicate ceramic, (2) the aging level, and (3) the choice of silicate ceramic show no impact on shear bond strength values
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
