COMPARISON OF THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF BRACKETS USING TWO SURFACE CONDITIONING METHODS FOR PORCELAIN
Introduction: During 2010 the degree research “Comparison of the shear bond strength of brackets using two surface conditioning methods for porcelain” was carried out at Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia in Bogota. Objective: To determine the shear bond strength of metal brackets cemented on porcelain using two surface conditioning methods.
Materials and methods: Forty human premolars were used and prepared for further cementing porcelain-metal crowns. There were two groups of 20 teeth each one; Group 1 was conditioned with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and silane coupling agents (hfa + s). Group 2 used 37% phosphoric acid and Primer porcelain (fa + pp). Then metal brackets were bonded using adhesive and Transbond xt resin. Samples were tested for shear bond strength with Instron, a universal testing machine.
Results: The highest shear bond strength was given by Group 2 (fa + pp) with a 9.4 MPa average, but Group 1 (hfa + s) a 7.0 MPa value (p = 0.006).
Conclusions: The chemical bonding method of 37% phosphoric acid and Primer porcelain provides better results of shear bond strength of metal brackets on porcelain surfaces and prevents to expose patients to toxic effects of hydrofluoric acid, reported in literature; also possible porcelain structure damage is minimized using acid etching.
How to Cite
License
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal Revista Nacional de Odontologia before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109(4): 420-30.
Larmour CJ, Bateman G, Stirrups DR. An investigation into the bonding of orthodontic attachments to porcelain. Eur J Orthod. 2006; 28: 74-7.
Saraç YS, Elekdag-Turk S, Saraç D, Turk T. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77(4): 723-8.
Gillis I, Redlich M. The effect of different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 387-92.
Türkkahraman H, Küçükes,men C. Porcelain surface-conditioning techniques and the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2006; 28: 440-3.
Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W, Özcan M. Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123: 540-6.
Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod. 1999; 26: 285–90.
Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets - a comparative study of adhesives. Br J Orthod. 1976; 3(3): 143-6.
Trakyal G, Malkondu Ö, Kazazog˘lu E, Arun T. Effects of different silanes and acid concentrations on bond strength of brackets to porcelain surfaces. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31: 402-6.
Herion DT, Ferracane JL, Covell DA. Porcelain surface alterations and refinishing after use of two orthodontic bonding methods. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: 167-74.
Vatarugegrid S, Viteporn S. Shear-peel bond strength of metal bracket to porcelain surface treated with 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel. CU Dent J. 2010; 33: 109-18.
Major PW, Koehler JR, Manning KE. 24-hour shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain using various adhesion promoters. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108: 322-9.
Wilson GA, Sanger RG, Boswick JA. Accidental hydrofluoric acid burns of the hand. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979; 99: 57-8.
Kirkpatrick JJ, Enion DS, Burd DA. Hydrofluoric acid burns: a review. Burns. 1995; 21: 483-93.
Fujimoto K, Yasuhra N. Burns caused by dilute hydrofluoric acid in the bleach. J Nippon Med Sch. 2002; 69: 180-4.
Wood DP, Jordan RE, Way DC, Galil KA. Bonding to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod. 1986; 89: 194-205.
Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore K. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94: 421-5.
Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of the ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994; 106: 10-21.
Samruajbenjakul B, Kukiattrakoon B. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs to feldspathic porcelains. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79: 571-6.
Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique pf bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthodontic. 1994; 21: 33-3.
Finnema KJ, Özcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU. In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137: 615-22.
Smith G A, Mclnnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux W R, Weinberg R. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain - bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94: 245-52.
Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974; 1: 265-84.
Zachrisson BU. Orthodontic bonding to artificial tooth surfaces: clinical versus laboratory findings. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 117: 592-4.
