Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.38(4) > 1043557

An and Sohn: The effect of using laser for ceramic bracket bonding of porcelain surfaces

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of using laser for ceramic bracket bonding of porcelain surfaces and to compare it with conventional treatment of porcelain surfaces.

Methods

Ninety feldspathic porcelain specimens were divided into 9 groups of 10, with each group having different surface treatments performed. Surface treatment groups were orthophosphoric acid, orthophosphoric acid with silane, hydrofluoric acid, hydrofluoric acid with silane, sandblasted, sandblasted with silane, laser etched, laser etched with silane, and glazed surface served as a control group. In the laser etched groups, the specimens were irradiated with 2-watt superpulse carbon dioxide (CO2) laser for 20 seconds. Ceramic brackets were bonded with light-cure composite resin and all specimens were stored in water at 37℃ for 24 hours. Shear bond strength was determined in megapascals (MPa) by shear test at 1 mm/minute crosshead speed and the failure pattern was assessed. For statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA and tukey test were used.

Results

Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the groups. The HFA + S group showed the highest mean shear bond strength (13.92 ± 1.94 MPa). This was followed by SB + S (10.16 ± 1.27 MPa), HFA (10.09 ± 1.07 MPa), L + S (8.25 ± 1.24 MPa), L (7.86 ± 0.96 MPa), OFS + S (7.22 ± 1.09 MPa), SB (3.41 ± 0.37 MPa), OFA (2.81 ± 0.37 MPa), G (2,46 ± 1.36 MPa). Bond failure patterns of HFA and silane groups, except L + S, were cohesive modes in porcelain while adhesive failure was observed in the control group and the rest of the groups.

Conclusions

A 2-watt superpulse CO2 laser etching of porcelain surfaces can provide a satisfactory result for porcelain surface treatment for ceramic bracket bonding. Laser irradiation may be an alternative conditioning method for the treatment of porcelain surfaces.

Figures and Tables

Fig 1
SEM photograghs of laser-treated porcelain surfaces. A, 10 W (X 200); B, 5 W (X 500); C, 3 W (X 500); D, 2 W (X 500).
kjod-38-275-g001
Table 1
Measured values of shear bond strength of each group
kjod-38-275-i001

OFA, orthophosphoric acid; SB, sandblasting; HFA, hydrofluoric acid; L, laser etch; C, control group (glazed surface); S, silane; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2
Bond failure patterns (unit: case)
kjod-38-275-i002

OFA, orthophosphoric acid; SB, sandblasting; HFA, hydrofluoric acid; L, laser etch; C, control group (glazed surface); S, silane.

References

1. Newman SM, Dressler KB, Grenadier MR. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to esthetic restorative materials using a silane. Am J Orthod. 1984. 86:503–506.
2. Smith GA, McInnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux WR, Weinberg R. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain-bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 94:245–252.
3. Merrill SW, Oesterle LJ, Hermesch CB. Ceramic bracket bonding: a comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:290–297.
4. Barbosa VL, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O, Keith O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 107:159–164.
5. Akova T, Yoldas O, Toroglu MS, Uysal H. Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. 128:630–637.
6. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001. 119:617–620.
7. Highton RM, Caputo AA, Matyas J. Effectiveness of porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1979. 42:292–294.
8. Nowlin TP, Barghi N, Norling BK. Evaluation of the bonding of three porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1981. 46:516–518.
9. Shahverdi S, Canay S, Sahin E, Bilge A. Effects of different surface treatment methods on the bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Oral Rehabil. 1998. 25:699–705.
10. Canay S, Kocadereli I, Ak"ca E. The effect of enamel air abrasion on the retention of bonded metallic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 117:15–19.
11. Wolf DM, Powers JM, O'Keefe KL. Bond strength of composite to porcelain treated with new porcelain repair agents. Dent Mater. 1992. 8:158–161.
12. 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. 77:723–728.
13. Maiman TH. Stimulated optical radiation in ruby. Nature. 1960. 187:493–494.
14. Strauss RA. Lasers in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 2000. 44:851–873.
15. Convissar RA, Goldstein EE. A combined carbon dioxide/ erbium laser for soft and hard tissue procedures. Dent Today. 2001. 20:66–71.
16. Ariyaratnam MT, Wilson MA, Mackie IC, Blinkhorn AS. 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. 1997. 13:51–55.
17. von Fraunhofer JA, Allen DJ, Orbell GM. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding. Angle Orthod. 1993. 63:73–76.
18. Walsh LJ, Abood D, Brockhurst PJ. Bonding of resin composite to carbon dioxide laser-modified human enamel. Dent Mater. 1994. 10:162–166.
19. Beyer E, Behter K, Petschke U. Misrendino LJ, Pick RM, editors. Schweissen mit CO2-Lasern. Laser u. Optoelektronik 1986. p. 1835-46. Lasers in dentistry. 1989. Chicago: Quintessence;231–245.
20. Dobberstein H, Schwarz A, Zuhrt R, Tani Y. Laser processing of dental materials. Lasers in dentistry. 1989. Elsevier Science;231–245.
21. Zach L, Cohen G. Pulp response to externally applied heat. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965. 19:515–530.
22. Rueggeberg FA, Lockwood P. Thermal debracketing of orthodontic resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 98:56–65.
23. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Stein H, Miethke RR, Nakata M. Histologic investigation of the human pulp after thermodebonding of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992. 102:410–417.
24. Ghassemi-Tary B. Direct bonding to porcelain: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod. 1979. 76:80–83.
25. Videen BL. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain [thesis]. 1984. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
26. Phillips RW. Skinner's science of dental materials. 1982. 8th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
27. Kao EC, Johnston WM. Fracture incidence on debonding of orthodontic brackets from porcelain veneer laminates. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 66:631–637.
28. Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of the ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:10–21.
29. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975. 2:171–178.
30. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1994. 72:355–359.
31. Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam and porcelain. J Clin Orthod. 1993. 27:661–675.
32. 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. 108:322–329.
TOOLS
Similar articles