Journal Article

Influence of surface conditioning on ceramic microstructure and bracket adhesion

Frank Falkensammer, Josef Freudenthaler, Bernhard Pseiner and Hans Peter Bantleon

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 34, issue 4, pages 498-504
Published in print August 2012 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online June 2011 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr034
Influence of surface conditioning on ceramic microstructure and bracket adhesion

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of different conditioning procedures on various ceramic microstructures and bracket adhesion. Ceramic specimens (feldspathic, leucite, leucite-free, and fluorapatite) were mechanically conditioned (n = 20 per ceramic type) with conventional hydrofluoric acid (5 per cent HF; 60/30 seconds), buffered hydrofluoric acid (9.6 per cent BHF; 60/30 seconds), or sandblasting (Al2O3/SiO2 particles). Silane coupling agents were added for chemical conditioning before bracket bonding. Bracket adhesion was calculated with a shear test in a universal testing machine. The bracket-composite-ceramic interface was further evaluated using the adhesive remnant index (ARI). One specimen of each ceramic/conditioning combination was subjected to qualitative electron microscopy investigation. One-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference test were applied for inferential statistics.

Conditioning with conventional 5 per cent HF or sandblasting resulted in significantly (P < 0.001) higher bond strengths (mean values: 34.11 and 32.86 MPa, respectively) than with 9.6 per cent BHF (mean value: 12.49 MPa). Etching time or sandblasting particles had no statistical (P > 0.001) influence on bond strength. Higher ARI scores were found in the conventional 5 per cent HF and sandblasted groups, when compared with the 9.6 per cent BHF group. Microscopic examination of the conditioned ceramic surfaces showed that leucite and leucite-free ceramics differed most with respect to their surface roughness, though without an influence on shear bond strength (SBS; P < 0.001). Bracket adhesion was mostly influenced by the conditioning procedure itself. Sandblasted ceramic surfaces showed sufficient conditioning and bracket adhesion; however, the increased bracket adhesion was associated with a risk of ceramic surface damage.

Journal Article.  3549 words.  Illustrated.

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.