Shear-bond-strength of orthodontic brackets to aged nano-hybrid compositeresin surfaces using different surface preparation
Source abstract
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different surface preparation methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic metal brackets to aged nano-hybrid resin composite surfaces in vitro. A total of 100 restorative composite resin discs, 6 mm in diameter and 3 mm thick, were obtained and treated with an ageing procedure. After ageing, the samples were randomly divided as follows according to surface preparation methods: (1)Control, (2)37% phosphoric acid gel, (3)Sandblasting, (4)Diamond bur, (5)Air-flow and 20 central incisor teeth were used for the control etched group. SBS test were applied on bonded metal brackets to all samples. SBS values and residual adhesives were evaluated. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference (p<0.001) between the groups. Sandblasted group had the highest SBS value (12.85 MPa) in experimental groups. The sandblasting surface treatment is recommended as an effective method of bonding orthodontic metal brackets to nano-hybrid composite resin surfaces.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Dental Research and COVID-19
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Livaditis G J. A chemical etching system for creating micromechanical retention in resin-bonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 56: 181-188.10.1016/0022-3913(86)90468-3 ↗
2. 2) Bayram M, Yesilyurt C, Kusgöz A, Ulker M, Nur M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to aged resin composite surfaces: effect of surface conditioning. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 174-179.10.1093/ejo/cjq048 ↗
3. 3) Buonocore M. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-853.10.1177/00220345550340060801 ↗
4. 4) Newman, GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments. Am J Orthod 1965; 51: 901-912.10.1016/0002-9416(65)90203-4 ↗
5. 5) Sunnegardh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JW, Funegard U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent 2009; 37: 673-678.10.1016/j.jdent.2009.04.010 ↗
6. 6) Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382-1390.10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054 ↗
7. 7) Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 45-52.10.2341/06-9 ↗
8. 8) Klausner LH, Green TG, Charbeneau GT. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations: a challenge for the profession. Oper Dent 1987; 12: 105-112.
9. 9) Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7: 63-70.10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7 ↗
10. 10) Crumpler DC, Bayne SC, Sockwell S, Brunson D, Roberson TM. Bonding to resurfaced posterior composites. Dent Mater 1989; 5: 417-424.10.1016/0109-5641(89)90113-9 ↗
11. 11) Dhuru VB, Lloyd CH. The fracture toughness of repaired composite. J Oral Rehabil1986; 13: 413-421.10.1111/j.1365-2842.1986.tb01303.x ↗
12. 12) Oilver RG. The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 93: 196-200.10.1016/S0889-5406(88)80003-9 ↗
13. 13) Wheeler JJ, Ackerman Jr RJ. Bond strength of thermally recycled metal brackets. Am J Orthod 1983; 88: 181-186.
14. 14) Reynolds IR, Von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod 1976; 3: 91-95.10.1179/bjo.3.2.91 ↗
15. 15) Lopez JI. Retentive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod 1980; 77: 669-678.10.1016/0002-9416(80)90158-X ↗
16. 16) Keizer S, Ten Cate JM, Arends J. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1976; 69: 318-327.10.1016/0002-9416(76)90079-8 ↗
17. 17) Maijer R, Smith DC. A new surface treatment for bonding. J Biomed Mater Res 1979; 13: 975-985.10.1002/jbm.820130614 ↗
18. 18) Zachrisson Y, Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109: 420-430.10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70124-5 ↗
19. 19) Kern M, Fechting T, Strub JR. Influence of water storage and thermal cycling on the fracture strength of all-porcelain, resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 251-256.10.1016/0022-3913(94)90463-4 ↗
20. 20) Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strength of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94: 421-425.10.1016/0889-5406(88)90132-1 ↗
21. 21) Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 1999; 26: 285-290.10.1093/ortho/26.4.285 ↗
22. 22) Thurmond JW, Barkmeier W, Wilwerdind TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72: 355-359.10.1016/0022-3913(94)90553-3 ↗
23. 23) Jordan RE. In: Jordan RE, editor. Resin to resin bonding. Esthetic composite bonding. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1993. pp. 339-347.
24. 24) Viwattanatipa N, Jermwiwatkul W, Chintavalakorn R, Nanthavanich N. The effect of different surface preparation techniques on the survival probabilities of orthodontic brackets bonded to nanofill composite resin. J Orthod 2010; 37: 162-173.10.1179/14653121043065 ↗
25. 25) Reynolds I. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975; 2: 171-178.10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666 ↗