Hybrid crowns – bonding protocols and shear bond strength

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

9
Reader(s)
13
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 33 , ISSUE 1 (May 2017) > List of articles

Hybrid crowns – bonding protocols and shear bond strength

Matthew Epperson / Neha Vazirani / Paul C. Armbruster / Edwin L. Kee / Xiaoming Xu / Richard W. Ballard *

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 40-47, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-083

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 30-July-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Aims: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of three different surface treatment protocols on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets to Vita Enamic® and Lava™ Ultimate CAD/CAM hybrid ceramics.

Methods: A total of 60 crowns were milled and divided into one of three etching groups which used 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, 35% phosphoric acid and 50 µ aluminum oxide microetching. The surface morphology of the ceramic was observed after each etching treatment using a scanning electron microscope to characterise the etched surface. Lower left first molar tubes (Ormco™) were bonded with light-cure composite, stored in artificial saliva for one week and subsequently thermocycled. The SBS test was performed using an Instron 5566 machine. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were also assigned to determine the mode of bond failure. Data were analysed using an Independent Sample t-test.

Results: The SBS of all groups, except the HFA Enamic® group, were significantly lower than the mean SBS of the enamel control group (8.8 MPa). The mean shear bond strength values of Enamic® were significantly higher than those of Lava™ Ultimate (p-values < 0.05).

Conclusions: Statistically, only Enamic® treated with HFA exhibited sufficient SBS when compared with the enamel control. Adhesive failures between the bracket base and adhesive were the predominant mode of failure in all groups except in the PA Lava™ Ultimate group.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th edn. St Louis: Mosby, 2013;17.

2. Gart C, Zamanian K. On the rise: US dental CAD/CAM markets to experience rapid growth through 2015. J Dent Technol 2009;26:8-10.

3. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56.

4. Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S. Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material. Open Dent J 2013;7:118-22.

5. 3M ESPE. LAVA Ultimate CAD/CAM Restorative, Technical Product Profile. .

6. Elsaka SE. Influence of surface treatments on bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic material. Odontology 2016;104:68-76.

7. Costa AR, Correr AB, Puppin-Rontani RM, Vedovello SA, Valdrighi HC, Correr-Sobrinho L et al. Effect of bonding material, etching time and silane on the bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets to ceramic. Braz Dent J 2012;23:223-7.

8. Barceló Santana HF, Hernández Medina R, Acosta Torres SL, Sánchez Herrera LM, Fernández Pedrero AJ, Ortíz González R. Evaluation of bond strength of metal brackets by a resin to ceramic surfaces. J Clin Dent 2006;17:5-9.

9. Zachrisson YØ, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:420-30.

10. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:617-20.

11. Purmal K, Alam MK, Sukumaran P. Shear bond strength of orthodontic buccal tubes to porcelain. Dent Res J 2013;10:81-6.

12. Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W, Özcan M. Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:540-6.

13. Türk T, Saraç D, Saraç YŞ, Elekdağ-Türk S. Effects of surface conditioning on bond strength of metal brackets to all-ceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:450-6.

14. Bishara SE, Otsby AW, Ajlouni R, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. A new premixed self-etch adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1101-4.

15. Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Yamamoto K. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self-etching adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:425-30.

16. Lestrade AM, Ballard RW, Xu X, Yu Q, Kee EL, Armbruster PC. Porcelain surface conditioning protocols and shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Aust Orthod J 2016;32:18-22.

17. Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 1999;26:285-90.

18. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Torres TJ, Avera SP. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:17-23.

19. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-8.

20.    3M  ESPE.  LAVA  Ultimate  CAD/CAM  Restorative.  Viewed  10 February 2014, <http://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/dental-us/products/lava-ultimate/?WT.mc_id=www.3m.com/3M/en_US/Dental/Products/Lava-Ultimate/>.

21. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;85:333-40.

22. Zachrisson BU, Artun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979;75:121-37.

 

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS