Journal Article

A comparative study of shear bond strength between metal and ceramic brackets and artificially aged composite restorations using different surface treatments

Ladan Eslamian, Ali Borzabadi-Farahani, Nasim Mousavi and Amir Ghasemi

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 34, issue 5, pages 610-617
Published in print October 2012 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online March 2011 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr044
A comparative study of shear bond strength between metal and ceramic brackets and artificially aged composite restorations using different surface treatments

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

This in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) between ceramic brackets (CBs) and resin composite restorations (RCRs) prepared using different surface treatments. The findings were also compared with a similar study that used stainless steel brackets (SSBs). Forty-five premolars were restored with a nano-hybrid composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) and randomly assigned to three surface treatment groups: group 1, 5 per cent hydrofluoric acid (HF); group 2, air abrasion (50 μm alumina particles); and group 3, diamond bur. Specimens were bonded with CBs (Fascination) and exposed to thermo-cycling (500 cycles). The shear force at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute was transmitted to brackets. The adhesive remnant index (ARIs) scores were recorded after bracket failure. The analysis of SBS variance (P < 0.01) and chi-square test of ARIs scores (P < 0.01) revealed significant differences among three groups tested. The SBS in group 3 (mean: 26.34 ± 4.76 MPa) and group 2 (mean: 26.68 ± 5.93 MPa) was significantly higher than group 1 (mean: 16.25 ± 5.42 MPa). The SBS was significantly higher in CBs (mean: 23.09 ± 7.19 MPa) compared to SSBs (mean: 15.56 ± 5.13 MPa). High ARIs (100 per cent) occurred in SSBs treated with a diamond bur, whereas CBs primarily failed at the resin–adhesive interface (P < 0.01). In two-thirds of the specimens (SSBs or CBs), no adhesive was left on the restoration after HF conditioning. The ARIs profile of CBs and SSBs that received surface treatments with air abrasion were similar (P > 0.05) and bond failure occurred mainly in adhesive–bracket base and resin–adhesive interfaces. The diamond bur surface treatment is recommended as a safe and cost-effective method of bonding CBs to RCRs.

Journal Article.  4846 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.