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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pinho, Mónica, Manso, Maria C., Almeida, Ricardo Faria, Martin, Conchita, Carvalho, Óscar, Henriques, Bruno, Silva, Filipe, Pinhão Ferreira, Afonso, Souza, Júlio C. M.
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