Orthodontic shear bond strength to porcelain surface in wet conditions

  • Magáli Beck Guimarães Centro Universitário Fransciscano
  • Bárbara Cocco Centro Universitário Franciscano
  • Rodrigo Salbego Bueno Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
  • Micéli Beck Guimarães Blaya Centro Universitário Franciscano
  • Letícia Borges Jacques Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
  • Luciana Mayumi Hirakata Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
Keywords: Shear strength, Dental porcelain, Dental bonding, Orthodontics

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the shear bond strength of orthodontic accessories bonded to a porcelain surface after storage in water.
Methods: One-hundredand-twenty feldspathic porcelain discs were divided into 4 groups, according to the surface treatment: Group 1 – 37% phosphoric acid etching; Group 2 – 10% fluorhydric acid; Group 3 – 37% phosphoric acid and silane application; Group 4 – 10% fluorhydric acid and silane application. After the accessories were bonded, the sample was divided into two subgroups, according to the time interval of storage in distilled water: Control – 24 hours; and Test – 150 days. Shear bond strength was determined using a universal test machine, and failure type was verified by scanning electron microscopy.
Results: In the test groups there was reduction in shear bond strength, particularly when silane was used. Test Groups 2 and 4 presented shear bond strength values within those proposed as adequate for orthodontic bonding. Groups 1 and 3  presented adhesive failures between porcelain and resin, whereas in Groups 2 and 4 cohesive failures in porcelain were recorded.
Conclusion: Storage in water for 150 days decreased the bond strength at silanized interfaces. Fluorhydric acid etching generates adequate bond strength in wet conditions, however, increases the fracture rate in porcelain.

References

Turkkahraman H, Kuçukesmen HC. Porcelain surface- onditioning techniques and the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28(5):440-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl026

Habibi M, Nik TH, Hooshmand T. Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel:An in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132(5):675-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ajodo.2005.11.040

Atsu SS, Gelgor IE, Sahin V. Effects of silica coating and silane surface conditioning on the bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to enamel. Angle Orthod 2006;76(5): 857-62. https://doi.org/10.1043/000 33219(2006)076[0857:EOSCAS]2.0.CO;2

Raptis NV, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H. Optical behavior of current ceramic systems. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(1):31-41.

Henriques ACG, Costa DPTS, Barros KMA, Beatrice LCS, Filho PFM. Dental Ceramics:current aspects, properties and indications. Odontologia Clín-Científ 2008;7(4):289-94.

Yadav S, Upadhyay M, Borges GA, Roberts WE. Influence of ceramic (feldspathic) surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength of composite resin. Angle Orthod 2010;80(4):577-82. https://doi. org/10.2319/082409-481.1

Herion DT, Ferracane JL, Covel da Jr. Porcelain surface alterations and refinishing after use of two orthodontic bonding methods. Angle Orthod 2010;80(1):167-74. https://doi.org/10.2319/010909-19.1

Fox NA, Mccabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994;21(1):33-43. https://doi.org/10.1179/ bjo.21.1.33

Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Surface preparation of orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109(4):420-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70124-5

Larmour CJ, Bateman G, Stirrups DR. An investigation into the bonding of orthodontic attachments to porcelain. Eur J Orthod 2006;28(1): 74-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji072

Newman GV, Newman RA, Sun BI, HA JL, Ozsoylu SA. Adhesion promoters, their effect on the bond strength of metal brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108(3):237-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0889-5406(95)70015-3

Haydar B, Sarikaya S, Cehreli ZC.Comparison of shear bond strength of three bonding agents with metal and ceramic brackets. Angle Orthod 1999;69(5):457-62. https://doi.org/10.1043/00033219(1999)069<0457:C OSBSO>2.3.CO;2

Özcan M, Pfeiffer P, Nergiz I. A brief history and current status of metal and ceramic surface conditioning concepts for resin bonding in dentistry. Quintessence Int 1998;29(11):713-24.

Brentel AS, Özcan M, Valandro LF, Alarça LG, Amaral R, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldspathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions. Dent Mater 2007;23(11):1323-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.011

Guimarães MB, Lenz HF, Bueno RS, Blaya MBG, Hirakata LM. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain surfaces:In vitro shear bond strength. Rev Odonto Ciênc 2012;27(1):47-51. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980- 65232012000100009

Mattos AM, Capelli Junior J. Porcelain surface evaluation after debonding of orthodontic brackets. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial 2006;11(5):151-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-54192006000500016

Published
2016-12-26
Section
Original Article