Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.39(4) > 1043592

Kang, Son, Park, and Kim: Effect of thermocycling on shear bond strength and mode of failure of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to different porcelain restorations

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of thermocycling and type of porcelain restoration on shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure of monocrystalline ceramic brackets.

Methods

A total of 60 porcelain discs were made and divided into three equal groups as follows: Ceramco 3, IPS Empress II, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR. ceramic brackets were bonded to the prepared porcelain surfaces in the same manner. Each group was divided randomly into two subgroups: thermocycled group and non-thermocycled group (control). All samples were tested in shear mode on an universal testing machine.

Results

SBS of the non-thermocycled group was clinically acceptable (Ceramco 3: 7.06 ± 1.76 MPa, IPS Empress II: 7.55 ± 2.38 MPa, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR: 7.19 ± 1.38 MPa). But, SBS of the thermocycled group was significantly reduced (Ceramco 3: 4.88 ± 1.00 MPa, IPS Empress II: 5.46 ± 1.35 MPa, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR: 4.84 ± 1.01 MPa, p < 0.05). There was no difference between the shear bond strength by type of porcelain restoration. All bonding failure occurred between bracket base and adhesive, except for 2 samples.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the type of porcelain restoration did not affect SBS, but thermocycling weakened SBS. Therefore, the effect of thermocycling should be considered when using ceramic brackets in practice.

Figures and Tables

Fig 1
SEM photomicrograph of ceramic bracket base before bonding (magnification × 30). Silica particles can be seen.
kjod-39-225-g001
Fig 2
Application of shear debonding force.
kjod-39-225-g002
Fig 3
Shear bonding strength was significantly reduced in the thermocycled group.
kjod-39-225-g003
Fig 4
SEM photograph of failure site (magnification × 30). A, Silica particles were removed from the bracket base; B, the rest of the adhesive can be seen attached to the porcelain surface.
kjod-39-225-g004
Fig 5
SEM photograph of porcelain disc (magnification × 1,000). A, D, G, Glazed porcelain surface; B, E, H, airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm Al2O3; C, F, I, surface etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 2 min (Ceramco 3: A, B, C, Empress II: D, E, F, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR: G, H, I).
kjod-39-225-g005
Table 1
Decrease of shear bond strength after thermocycling
kjod-39-225-i001

SD, standard deviation; *p < 0.05 (independent t-test).

Table 2
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of reciprocal action between porcelain and thermocycling
kjod-39-225-i002

NS, not significant; *p < 0.05.

Table 3
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of shear bond strength in the thermocycled group
kjod-39-225-i003

SD, standard deviation; NS, not significant.

Table 4
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of shear bond strength in the non-thermocycled group
kjod-39-225-i004

NS, not significant.

Table 5
Modified adhesive remnant index scores for the groups tested
kjod-39-225-i005

T, thermocycled; NT, non thermocycled; NS, not significant. χ2 = 4.138.

References

1. 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.
crossref
2. Kim SG, Sung JH. Effect of surface treatment of porcelain on tensile bond strength. Korean J Orthod. 1996. 26:301–308.
3. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig WL, editors. Bonding in orthodontics. Orthodontics: current principles & techniques. 2005. St Louis: Mosby;579–659.
4. Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 97:121–125.
crossref
5. Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 98:214–221.
crossref
6. Wood DP, Jordan RE, Way DC, Galil KA. Bonding to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod. 1986. 89:194–205.
crossref
7. Lacy AM, LaLuz J, Watanabe LG, Dellinges M. Effect of porcelain surface treatment on the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 60:288–291.
crossref
8. 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.
9. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam, and porcelain. J Clin Orthod. 1993. 27:661–675.
10. Barbosa VL, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O, Keith O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 107:159–164.
crossref
11. 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.
crossref
12. Whitlock BO 3rd, Eick JD, Ackerman RJ Jr, Glaros AG, Chappell RP. Shear strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:358–364.
crossref
13. Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of the ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:10–21.
crossref
14. Hayakawa T, Horie K, Aida M, Kanaya H, Kobayashi T, Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Mater. 1992. 8:238–240.
crossref
15. Lee JN, Lee CW. Shear bond strength and debonding failure mode of ceramic brackets according to the surface treatment of porcelain. Korean J Orthod. 1998. 28:803–812.
16. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Böhme A. Shear bond strengths attained in vitro with light-cured glass ionomers vs composite adhesives in bonding ceramic brackets to metal or porcelain. J Adhes Dent. 1999. 3:243–253.
17. Türkkahraman H, Küçükemen HC. Porcelain surface-conditioning techniques and the shear bond strength ofceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2006. 28:440–443.
18. Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 109:402–430.
crossref
19. International Organization for Standardization. ISO TR 11405 dental materials - guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
20. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984. 85:333–340.
crossref
21. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, Laffoon JF. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 116:616–620.
crossref
22. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975. 2:171–178.
crossref
23. Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 94:421–425.
crossref
24. Sparrius O, Grossman ES. Marginal leakage of composite resin restorations in combination with dental and enamel bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 61:678–684.
crossref
25. Shin WC, Kim JS, Kim JG. The effects of mechanical and thermal fatigue on the shear bond strength of orthodontic adhesives. Korean J Orthod. 1996. 26:175–186.
26. Tanaka T, Kamada T, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. A comparison of water temperatures for thermocycling of metal-bonded resin specimens. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:345–349.
crossref
27. Son JH, Hwang HS. Change of fracture mode of orthodontic resin bracket wings under water immersion and thermocycling. Korean J Orthod. 2000. 30:475–481.
28. Southan DE, Jorgensen KD. An explanation for the occurrence of internal faults in porcelain jacket crowns. Aust Dent J. 1973. 18:152–156.
crossref
29. Grey NJA, Piddock V, Wilson MA. In vitro comparison of conventional crowns and a new all-ceramic system. J Dent. 1993. 21:47–51.
crossref
30. Jeong HC. Fracture strength of zirconia monolithic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2006. 44:157–164.
31. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Torres TJ, Avera SP. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthod. 1991. 4:17–23.
32. Kao EC, Johnston WM. Fracture incidence on debonding of orthodontic brackets from porcelain veneer laminates. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 66:631–637.
crossref
33. Kern M, Thompson VP. Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 73:240–249.
crossref
34. Kim JS, Hwang HS, Jeong CM, Jeon YC. A study on the bond strength of resin cements to Empress 2 ceramic. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2001. 39:184–196.
35. Abu Alhaija Elham S J, Al-Wahadni Ahed M S. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod. 2007. 29:386–389.
crossref
36. Soderquist S, Drummond J, Evans C. Bond strength evaluation of ceramic and stainless steel bracket bases subjected to cyclic tensile loading. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. 129:175.e7–175.e12.
crossref
37. Akova T, Ozkomur A, Aytutuldu N, Toroglu MS. The effect of food simulants on porcelain-composite bonding. Dent Mater. 2007. 23:1369–1372.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles