Adhesive resin composite, which is used to bond orthodontic bracket to tooth surface is exposed to the influence of wear by tooth brushing and wear may influence loosening of the bracket.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the effect of tooth brushing on the adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to surface treated porcelain.
Method:
A total of 90 glazed porcelain fused to metal facets (PFM) were randomly assigned into 3 groups according to the surface treatment to be received. Group 1 was conditioned with hydrofluoric acid (HF), group 2 conditioned with grit-blasting (GB) and group 3 conditioned with tribochemical silica coating (RC). The groups were evaluated for surface roughness () before and after surface treatment. Next, 15 samples from each group were subjected to brushing and remaining 15 samples served as the baseline (). Adhesion strength (shear bond strength)was recorded using a universal testing machine. Data collected were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison post hoc analysis.
Results:
Tooth brushing decreased the bond strength in all groups. The highest adhesion strength (baseline and after brushing) was observed in group 3 (26.8 ± 1.77 MPa and 23.57 ± 1.02 MPa) and the lowest was found in group 1 (9.6 ± 1.5 MPa and 5.87 ± 0.77 MPa). Group 3 specimens exhibited the highest (1.24 ± 0.08).
Conclusion:
It was found that tooth brushing of the exposed adhesive resin composite at the bracket-bonding substrate interface lowers the bonding strength regardless of the surface treatment of the substrate.
FaltermeierA.ReichenederC.GötzfriedP. and ProffP., Bonding orthodontic ceramic brackets to ceramic restorations: Evaluation of different surface conditioning methods, Mater. Sci. Appl.44(7B) (2013), 10–14.
2.
SmithG.A.McInnes-LedouxP.LedouxW.R. and WeinbergR., Orthodontic bonding to porcelain-bond strength and refinishing, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.94(3) (1988), 245–252. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(88)90034-0.
3.
FalkensammerF.FreudenthalerJ.PseinerB. and BantleonH.P., Influence of surface conditioning on ceramic microstructure and bracket adhesion, Eur. J. Orthod.34(4) (2012), 498–504. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr034.
4.
AjlouniR.BisharaS.E.OonsombatC.SolimanM. and LaffoonJ., The effect of porcelain surface conditioning on bonding orthodontic brackets, Angle Orthod.75(5) (2005), 858–864.
5.
AbdelnabyY.L., Effects of cyclic loading on the bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets bonded to a porcelain surface using different conditioning protocols, Angle Orthod.81(6) (2011), 1064–1069. doi:10.2319/030211-151.1.
6.
KocadereliI.CanayS. and AkcaK., Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.119(6) (2001), 617–620. doi:10.1067/mod.2001.113655.
7.
SaracY.S.KulunkT.Elekdag-TurkS.SaracD. and TurkT., Effects of surface-conditioning methods on shear bond strength of brackets bonded to different all-ceramic materials, Eur. J. Orthod.33(6) (2011), 667–672. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjq132.
8.
HosseiniM.H.SoboutiF.EtemadiA.ChiniforushN. and ShariatiM., Shear bond strength of metal brackets to feldspathic porcelain treated by Nd: YAG laser and hydrofluoric acid, Lasers Med. Sci.30(2) (2015), 837–841. doi:10.1007/s10103-013-1458-3.
9.
AriyaratnamM.T.WilsonM.A.MackieI.C. and BlinkhornA.S., A comparison of surface roughness and composite/enamel bond strength of human enamel following the application of the Nd: YAG laser and etching with phosphoric acid, Dent. Mater.13(1) (1997), 51–55. doi:10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80008-5.
10.
Abu AlhaijaE.S. and Al-WahadniA.M., Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces, Eur. J. Orthod.29(4) (2007), 386–389. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm032.
11.
AkovaT.YoldasO.TorogluM.S. and UysalH., Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.128(5) (2005), 630–637. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.021.
12.
KaranS.BuyukyilmazT. and TorogluM.S., Orthodontic bonding to several ceramic surfaces: Are there acceptable alternatives to conventional methods?, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.132(2) (2007), 7–14. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.006.
13.
EustaquioR.GarnerL.D. and MooreB.K., Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair systems, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.94(5) (1988), 421–425. doi:10.1016/0889-5406(88)90132-1.
14.
BessingC. and WiktorssonA., Comparison of two different methods of polishing porcelain, Scand. J. Dent. Res.91(6) (1983), 482–487.
15.
SchmageP.NergizI.HerrmannW. and OzcanM., Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.123(5) (2003), 540–546. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(02)56911-0.
16.
KawaiK.UranoM. and EbisuS., Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans, J. Prosthet. Dent.83(6) (2000), 664–667. doi:10.1067/mpr.2000.107442.
17.
HickmanJ.MillettD.T.SanderL.et al., Powered vs manual tooth brushing in fixed appliance patients: A short term randomized clinical trial, Angle Orthod.72(2) (2002), 135–140.
18.
YaacobM.WorthingtonH.V.DeaconS.A.et al., Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health, Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.17(6) (2014).
19.
OliveiraG.J.PavoneC.CostaM.R. and MarcantonioR.A., Effect of toothbrushing with different manual toothbrushes on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, Braz. Oral Res.24(3) (2010), 316–322. doi:10.1590/S1806-83242010000300010.
20.
HansenP.A.KilloyW. and MastersonK., Effect of brushing with sonic and counterrotational toothbrushes on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.115(1) (1999), 55–60. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70316-1.
21.
Garcia-GodoyF. and de JagerM., Effect of manual and powered toothbrushes on orthodontic bracket bond strength, Am. J. Dent.20(2) (2007), 90–92.
22.
ThienpontV.DermautL.R. and Van MaeleG., Comparative study of 2 electric and 2 manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.120(4) (2001), 353–360. doi:10.1067/mod.2001.116402.
23.
Test methods for shear bond strength of adhesives for orthodontic attachments – Part 1: Bonding of the interfacial surfaces adhesive-attachment and adhesive-enamel. ISO standards-13990-2D:Beuth, Berlin, 2009.
24.
ArtunJ. and BerglandS., Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment, Am. J. Orthod.85(4) (1984), 333–340. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8.
25.
GillisI. and RedlichM., The effect of different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop.114(4) (1998), 387–392. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70183-0.
26.
GirishP.V.DineshU.BhatC.S. and ShettyP.C., Comparison of shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to porcelain surface using different surface conditioning methods: An in vitro study, J. Contemp. Dent. Pract.13(4) (2012), 487–493. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1174.
27.
HayakawaT.HorieK.AidaM.KanayaH.KobayashiT. and MurataY., The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain, Dent. Mater.8(4) (1992), 238–240. doi:10.1016/0109-5641(92)90092-Q.
28.
OzcanM.AlanderP.VallittuP.K.HuysmansM.C. and KalkW., Effect of three surface conditioning methods to improve bond strength of particulate filler resin composites, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med.16(1) (2005), 21–27. doi:10.1007/s10856-005-6442-4.
29.
OzcanM.VallittuP.K.HuysmansM.C.KalkW. and VahlbergT., Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med.17(1) (2006), 7–13. doi:10.1007/s10856-006-6324-4.
30.
HeikkinenT.T.LassilaL.V.MatinlinnaJ.P. and VallittuP.K., Effect of operating air pressure on tribochemical silica-coating, Acta Odontol. Scand.65(4) (2007), 241–248. doi:10.1080/00016350701459753.
31.
MatinlinnaJ.P.HeikkinenT.OzcanM.et al., Evaluation of resin adhesion to zirconia ceramic using some organosilanes, Dent. Mater.22(9) (2006), 824–831. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.035.
32.
MatinlinnaJ.P.LassilaL.V. and VallittuP.K., The effect of three silane coupling agents and their blends with a cross-linker silane on bonding a bis-GMA resin to silicatized titanium (a novel silane system), J. Dent.34(10) (2006), 740–746. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2006.01.008.
33.
ChaiY.LinH.ZhengG.et al., Evaluation of the micro-shear bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentin with and without adhesive area limitation, Biomed. Mater. Eng.26(Suppl. 1) (2015), S63–S72.
34.
ThurmondJ.W.BarkmeierW.W. and WilwerdingT.M., Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain, J. Prosthet. Dent.72(4) (1994), 355–359. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(94)90553-3.
