Bond strength of metal brackets to feldspathic ceramic treated with different surface conditioning methods: an in vitro study

Authors : Duygu RECEN, Bengisu YİLDİRİM, Eman OTHMAN, Erhan COMLEKOGLU, Isil ARAS

Pages : 1-7

View : 24 | Download : 6

Publication Date : 2021-01-30

Article Type : Research Paper

Abstract :Background: Feldspathic ceramic insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(FC); surface treatment methods require many steps for bracket bonding. Monobond Etch & Prime insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(MEP); is more convenient to use intra-orally when compared to hydrofluoric insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(HF); acid etching and sandblasting. Purpose: To compare MEP which is originally manufactured for increasing bond strength between organic resins and ceramic with conventional surface treatment methods in preparation of leucite-reinforced FC surfaces regarding shear bond strength insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(SBS); of stainless steel brackets and the mode of bond failure. Materials and Methods: Forty specimens that were fabricated from FC material and glazed were randomly assigned to four surface conditioning methods: insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(1); CoJet Sand; insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(2); MEP; insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(3); HF acid etching followed by silane coupling agent; insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(4); Diamond bur followed by silane coupling agent. The SBS was determined using universal testing machine. Bond failure sites were classified according to Adhesive Remnant Index insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(ARI);. Results: No statistically significant difference insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(p>0.05); was found in SBS between the groups while significant intergroup differences were detected concerning ARI scores insert ignore into journalissuearticles values(p<0.001);. Group 1 had ARI score 1 and 2 indicating mode of failure at the adhesive interface with greater percentage of the adhesive left on bracket base. The other groups had higher frequency of ARI score 3 and 2. The quantity of the ARI retained on the ceramic surface was highest in Group 3, followed by Group 4 and Group 2. Conclusion: MEP can be a suitable alternative for bonding metal brackets to FC surface. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Considering high SBS values, safer ARI scores and not requiring additional efforts such as isolation of working area, MEP has been found promising for bonding metal brackets to FC surface.
Keywords : Surface treatment methods, Adhesion, Bond performance, Feldspathic ceramic