Effect of tribochemical silica coating on the shear bond strength of rebonded monocrystalline ceramic brackets

Young-Mi Jeon; Woo-Sung Son; Sang-Wook Kang

doi:10.4041/kjod.2010.40.3.184

Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.40(3) > 1043625

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jeon, Son, and Kang: Effect of tribochemical silica coating on the shear bond strength of rebonded monocrystalline ceramic brackets

Original Article

Korean Journal of Orthodontics

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2010; 40(3): 184-194.

Published online: 30 June 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.3.184

Effect of tribochemical silica coating on the shear bond strength of rebonded monocrystalline ceramic brackets

Young-Mi Jeon, DDS, MSD^a, Woo-Sung Son, DDS, MSD, PhD^b, Sang-Wook Kang, DDS, MSD^c

^aGraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Korea.

^bProfessor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Korea.

^cResident, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Korea.

Corresponding author: Sang-Wook Kang. Department of Orthodontics, Pusan National University Hospital, Beomeo-ri, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan 626-770, Korea. +82 55 360 5153; daniel.sw.kang@gmail.com

Received 2 February 2010 Revised 15 April 2010 Accepted 19 April 2010

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of tribochemical silica coating on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded ceramic brackets using nano-filled flowable composite resin.

Methods

A total of 60 premolars were prepared and divided into 4 equal groups as follows: Tribochemical silica coating (TC) + Transbond XT (XT), TC + Transbond supreme LV (LV), Sandblast treatment (SA) + XT, SA + LV. Treated ceramic brackets were rebonded on the premolars using each adhesive. All samples were tested in shear mode on a universal testing machine.

Results

SBS of silica coated groups were high enough for clinical usage (TCLV: 10.82 ± 1.82 MPa, TCXT: 11.50 ± 1.72 MPa). But, SBS of the sandblast treated groups had significantly lower values than the tribochemical silica coated groups (SALV, 1.23 ± 1.16 MPa; SAXT, 1.76 ± 1.39 MPa; p< 0.05). There was no difference between the shear bond strength by type of adhesive. In the silica coated groups, 77% of the samples showed bonding failure in the adhesive. In the sandblast treated group, all bonding failures occurred at the bracket-adhesive interface.

Conclusions

The result of this study suggest that newly introduced nano-filled flowable composite resin and tribochemical silica coating application on debonded ceramic bracket bases can produce appropriate bond strengths for orthodontic bonding.

Keywords: Tribochemical silica coating, Ceramic bracket, Shear bond strength

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

SEM photomicrograph of ceramic bracket base (magnification × 30). A, New bracket, silica powders uncoated; B, new bracket, silica powders can be seen; C, silica powders were removed from the bracket base after debonding (modified ARI score 1).

Fig. 2

Application of shear debonding force.

Fig. 3

SEM photomicrograph of re-treated ceramic bracket base. A, B, C, Silica coated ceramic bracket. Silica particles can be seen (arrow)(magnification × 30, × 250, × 10,000); D, E, F, sandblasted ceramic bracket (magnification × 30, × 250, × 10,000).

Fig. 4

Energy dispersive X-ray analysis. A, Silica coated bracket base surface; B, sandblasted bracket base surface.

Table 1

Comparative mean shear bond strength according to the two surface coating methods and the two types of resin adhesives

SD, Standard deviation.

Table 2

Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for analysis of reciprocal action between silica coating and adhesive type

Df, Degree of freedom.

Table 3

Modified adhesive remnant index scores for the groups tested

TCLV, Tribochemical silica coating + Transbond Supreme LV; TCXT, tribochemical silica coating + Transbond XT; SALV, sandblast + Transbond Supreme LV; SAXT, sandblast + Transbond XT; BF, bracket fracture; EF, enamel fracture.

Table 4

Comparison of adhesive remnant index scores of rebonded brackets according to silica coating, and adhesive type

Same abbreviations as Table 3; -, not applicable.

References

1. Kew KK, Djeng SK. Recycling ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1990. 24:44–47.

2. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972. 62:296–309.

3. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Finishing and detailing with a preadjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod. 1991. 25:251–264.

4. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975. 2:171–178.

5. Sung JY, Kang KH. Shear bond strength of rebonded ceramic brackets. Korean J Orthod. 2009. 39:234–247.

6. Martina R, Laino A, Cacciafesta V, Cantiello P. Recycling effects on ceramic brackets: a dimensional, weight and shear bond strength analysis. Eur J Orthod. 1997. 19:629–636.

7. Gaffey PG, Major PW, Glover K, Grace M, Koehler JR. Shear/peel bond strength of repositioned ceramic brackets. Angle Orthod. 1995. 65:351–357.

8. Yim JB, Lee JW, Cha KS. Shear bond strength of recycled orthodontic brackets treated by variable reconditioning methods. Korean J Orthod. 1996. 26:569–579.

9. Chung CH, Friedman SD, Mante FK. Shear bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002. 122:282–287.

10. Toroglu MS, Yaylali S. Effects of sandblasting and silica coating on the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 134:181e1–181e7.

11. Kang SW, Son WS, Park SB, Kim SS. Effect of thermocycling on shear bond strength and mode of failure of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to different porcelain restorations. Korean J Orthod. 2009. 39:225–233.

12. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig WL, editors. Bonding in orthodontics. Orthodontics: current principles & techniques. 2005. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby;579–659.

13. 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.

14. Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 109:420–430.

15. Birnie D. Ceramic brackets. Br J Orthod. 1990. 17:71–74.

16. Harris AM, Joseph VP, Rossouw PE. Shear peel bond strengths of esthetic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992. 102:215–219.

17. Calamia JR. Etched porcelain veneers: the current state of the art. Quintessence Int. 1985. 16:5–12.

18. Kern M, Thompson VP. Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 73:240–249.

19. Amaral R, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: the effect of surface conditioning. Dent Mater. 2006. 22:283–290.

20. Matinlinna JP, Vallittu PK. Silane based concepts on bonding resin composite to metals. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007. 8:1–8.

21. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998. 129:567–577.

22. D'Attilio M, Traini T, Di Iorio D, Varvara G, Festa F, Tecco S. Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle Orthod. 2005. 75:410–415.

23. Miles PG. Indirect bonding with a flowable light-cured adhesive. J Clin Orthod. 2002. 36:646–647.

24. Uysal T, Sari Z, Demir A. Are the flowable compoites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod. 2004. 74:697–702.

25. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008. 78:1105–1109.

26. Tecco S, Traini T, Caputi S, Festa F, de Luca V, D'Attilio M. A new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an in vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod. 2005. 75:672–677.

27. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Soliman MM, Oonsombat C, Laffoon JF, Warren J. Evaluation of a new nano-filled restorative material for bonding orthodontic brackets. World J Orthod. 2007. 8:8–12.

28. 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.

29. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 89:268–274.

30. Kitahara-Céia FM, Mucha JN, Marques dos Santos PA. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 134:548–555.

31. 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. 132:675–679.

32. Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993. 104:170–179.

33. Andreasen GF, Stieg MA. Bonding and debonding brackets to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 93:341–345.

34. Katona TR, Moore BK. The effects of load misalignment on tensile load testing of direct bonded orthodontic brackets--a finite element model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 105:543–551.

35. Oilo G. Bond strength testing--what does it mean? Int Dent J. 1993. 43:492–498.

36. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of a composite resin orthodontic adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2000. 70:435–441.

37. Bishara SE, Laffoon JF, VonWald L, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002. 121:521–525.

38. Ostertag AJ, Dhuru VB, Ferguson DJ, Meyer RA Jr. Shear, torsional, and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991. 100:251–258.

39. Smith RM, Barrett MG, Gardner WA, Marshall T, McLean MJ, McMichael DW, et al. Effect of environmental stress and surface treatment on resin-to-metal bonding. Am J Dent. 1993. 6:111–115.

TOOLS

Similar articles