Cargando…
Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces
Bonding strategies within different brackets and dental materials are still a challenge concerning adhesion and dental surface damage. This study compared the shear and tensile bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metallic brackets to enamel, acrylic, and ceramic surfaces after thermal cycling....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33213042 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13225197 |
_version_ | 1783615842392473600 |
---|---|
author | Pinho, Mónica Manso, Maria C. Almeida, Ricardo Faria Martin, Conchita Carvalho, Óscar Henriques, Bruno Silva, Filipe Pinhão Ferreira, Afonso Souza, Júlio C. M. |
author_facet | Pinho, Mónica Manso, Maria C. Almeida, Ricardo Faria Martin, Conchita Carvalho, Óscar Henriques, Bruno Silva, Filipe Pinhão Ferreira, Afonso Souza, Júlio C. M. |
author_sort | Pinho, Mónica |
collection | PubMed |
description | Bonding strategies within different brackets and dental materials are still a challenge concerning adhesion and dental surface damage. This study compared the shear and tensile bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metallic brackets to enamel, acrylic, and ceramic surfaces after thermal cycling. Dental surfaces were divided into three groups: enamel, ceramic, and acrylic. Each group received stainless-steel and ceramic brackets. After thermal cycling, specimens were randomly divided into two subgroups considering tensile (TBS) or shear bond strength (SBS) test. After the mechanical testing, scanning electron and optical microscopy were performed, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. The two-way ANOVA full factorial design was used to compare TBS, SBS, and ARI on the surface and bracket type (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in TBS, SBS, and ARI values per surface (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009) and type of bracket (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001). The highest mean SBS values were recorded for a ceramic bracket bonded to an acrylic surface (8.4 ± 2.3 MPa). For TBS, a ceramic bracket bonded to acrylic showed the worst performance (5.2 ± 1.8 MPa) and the highest values were found on a metallic bracket bonded to enamel. The adhesion of metallic or ceramic brackets is enough for clinical practice although the damage of the enamel surface after debonding is irreversible and harmful for the aesthetic outcome of the teeth. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7698487 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76984872020-11-29 Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces Pinho, Mónica Manso, Maria C. Almeida, Ricardo Faria Martin, Conchita Carvalho, Óscar Henriques, Bruno Silva, Filipe Pinhão Ferreira, Afonso Souza, Júlio C. M. Materials (Basel) Article Bonding strategies within different brackets and dental materials are still a challenge concerning adhesion and dental surface damage. This study compared the shear and tensile bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metallic brackets to enamel, acrylic, and ceramic surfaces after thermal cycling. Dental surfaces were divided into three groups: enamel, ceramic, and acrylic. Each group received stainless-steel and ceramic brackets. After thermal cycling, specimens were randomly divided into two subgroups considering tensile (TBS) or shear bond strength (SBS) test. After the mechanical testing, scanning electron and optical microscopy were performed, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. The two-way ANOVA full factorial design was used to compare TBS, SBS, and ARI on the surface and bracket type (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in TBS, SBS, and ARI values per surface (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009) and type of bracket (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001). The highest mean SBS values were recorded for a ceramic bracket bonded to an acrylic surface (8.4 ± 2.3 MPa). For TBS, a ceramic bracket bonded to acrylic showed the worst performance (5.2 ± 1.8 MPa) and the highest values were found on a metallic bracket bonded to enamel. The adhesion of metallic or ceramic brackets is enough for clinical practice although the damage of the enamel surface after debonding is irreversible and harmful for the aesthetic outcome of the teeth. MDPI 2020-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7698487/ /pubmed/33213042 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13225197 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Pinho, Mónica Manso, Maria C. Almeida, Ricardo Faria Martin, Conchita Carvalho, Óscar Henriques, Bruno Silva, Filipe Pinhão Ferreira, Afonso Souza, Júlio C. M. Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces |
title | Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces |
title_full | Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces |
title_fullStr | Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces |
title_full_unstemmed | Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces |
title_short | Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces |
title_sort | bond strength of metallic or ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel, acrylic, or porcelain surfaces |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33213042 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13225197 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pinhomonica bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT mansomariac bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT almeidaricardofaria bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT martinconchita bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT carvalhooscar bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT henriquesbruno bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT silvafilipe bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT pinhaoferreiraafonso bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces AT souzajuliocm bondstrengthofmetallicorceramicorthodonticbracketstoenamelacrylicorporcelainsurfaces |