Cargando…

Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of ceramic brackets to machine-able ceramics and ceramic veneering metal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Machined ceramic specimens (10x10x1.5 mm) were prepared from Empress® CAD (EP), and e.max® CAD (EM). Ceramic vene...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Juntavee, Niwut, Juntavee, Apa, Wongnara, Krittaphat, Klomklorm, Pimkhwan, Khechonnan, Ronnaphum
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343970/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697375
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55330
_version_ 1783389359448260608
author Juntavee, Niwut
Juntavee, Apa
Wongnara, Krittaphat
Klomklorm, Pimkhwan
Khechonnan, Ronnaphum
author_facet Juntavee, Niwut
Juntavee, Apa
Wongnara, Krittaphat
Klomklorm, Pimkhwan
Khechonnan, Ronnaphum
author_sort Juntavee, Niwut
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of ceramic brackets to machine-able ceramics and ceramic veneering metal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Machined ceramic specimens (10x10x1.5 mm) were prepared from Empress® CAD (EP), and e.max® CAD (EM). Ceramic veneering metal specimens (PF) were fabricated from sintered d.Sign® porcelain (1.27 mm thickness) over d.Sign®10 metal (0.23 mm thickness). Each ceramic was divided into 3-groups and treated surface by Er-YAG laser (LE) or etching with 9.6% HF acid for 5 seconds (A5) or 15 seconds (A15). Resin adhesive (Transbond™-XT) was used for attaching ceramic brackets for each group (n=15) and cured with LED (Bluephase®) for 50 seconds. Specimens were immersed in distilled water for 24 hours before testing for shear bond at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed for the differences in bond strength with ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). De-bond surfaces were microscopically examined. RESULTS: Bond strength (MPa) were 12.65±1.14 for EMA5, 14.50±2.21 for EMA15, 13.97±1.17 for EMLE, 12.40±1.95 for PFA5, 15.85±3.13 for PFA15, 14.06±2.17 for PFLE, 12.12±1.54 for EPA5, 15.65±1.57 for EPA15, 12.89±1.17 for EPLE. Significant differences in bond strength among groups were found related to surface treatment (p<0.05), but not significant difference upon type of ceramics (p>0.05). A15 provided higher bond strength than LE and A5 (P<0.05). No damage of ceramic surface upon de-bonding was indicated except for A15 tends to exhibit ditching. LE showed more uniform treated surface for bonding and no surface destruction upon de-bond compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength was affected by surface treatment. Both LE and A15 treated surface provided higher bond strength than A5. Considering possibly inducing defect on ceramic surface, LE seems to provide better favorable surface preparation than others. Treated ceramic surface with Er-YAG prior to bracket bonding is recommended. Key words:Ceramic, ceramic bracket, Er-YAG, laser, shear bond strength, surface treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6343970
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63439702019-01-29 Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials Juntavee, Niwut Juntavee, Apa Wongnara, Krittaphat Klomklorm, Pimkhwan Khechonnan, Ronnaphum J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of ceramic brackets to machine-able ceramics and ceramic veneering metal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Machined ceramic specimens (10x10x1.5 mm) were prepared from Empress® CAD (EP), and e.max® CAD (EM). Ceramic veneering metal specimens (PF) were fabricated from sintered d.Sign® porcelain (1.27 mm thickness) over d.Sign®10 metal (0.23 mm thickness). Each ceramic was divided into 3-groups and treated surface by Er-YAG laser (LE) or etching with 9.6% HF acid for 5 seconds (A5) or 15 seconds (A15). Resin adhesive (Transbond™-XT) was used for attaching ceramic brackets for each group (n=15) and cured with LED (Bluephase®) for 50 seconds. Specimens were immersed in distilled water for 24 hours before testing for shear bond at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed for the differences in bond strength with ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). De-bond surfaces were microscopically examined. RESULTS: Bond strength (MPa) were 12.65±1.14 for EMA5, 14.50±2.21 for EMA15, 13.97±1.17 for EMLE, 12.40±1.95 for PFA5, 15.85±3.13 for PFA15, 14.06±2.17 for PFLE, 12.12±1.54 for EPA5, 15.65±1.57 for EPA15, 12.89±1.17 for EPLE. Significant differences in bond strength among groups were found related to surface treatment (p<0.05), but not significant difference upon type of ceramics (p>0.05). A15 provided higher bond strength than LE and A5 (P<0.05). No damage of ceramic surface upon de-bonding was indicated except for A15 tends to exhibit ditching. LE showed more uniform treated surface for bonding and no surface destruction upon de-bond compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength was affected by surface treatment. Both LE and A15 treated surface provided higher bond strength than A5. Considering possibly inducing defect on ceramic surface, LE seems to provide better favorable surface preparation than others. Treated ceramic surface with Er-YAG prior to bracket bonding is recommended. Key words:Ceramic, ceramic bracket, Er-YAG, laser, shear bond strength, surface treatment. Medicina Oral S.L. 2018-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6343970/ /pubmed/30697375 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55330 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Juntavee, Niwut
Juntavee, Apa
Wongnara, Krittaphat
Klomklorm, Pimkhwan
Khechonnan, Ronnaphum
Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
title Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
title_full Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
title_fullStr Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
title_full_unstemmed Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
title_short Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
title_sort shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343970/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697375
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55330
work_keys_str_mv AT juntaveeniwut shearbondstrengthofceramicbracketbondedtodifferentsurfacetreatedceramicmaterials
AT juntaveeapa shearbondstrengthofceramicbracketbondedtodifferentsurfacetreatedceramicmaterials
AT wongnarakrittaphat shearbondstrengthofceramicbracketbondedtodifferentsurfacetreatedceramicmaterials
AT klomklormpimkhwan shearbondstrengthofceramicbracketbondedtodifferentsurfacetreatedceramicmaterials
AT khechonnanronnaphum shearbondstrengthofceramicbracketbondedtodifferentsurfacetreatedceramicmaterials