Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(02): 150-155
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694304
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Comparison of Shear Strength of Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Depending on Surface Treatment: An In Vitro Study

Sibel Cetik 
1   Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital and Laboratory of Physiology and Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Thaï Hoang Ha
2   Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Léa Sitri
2   Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Hadrien Duterme
2   Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Viet Pham
2   Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
,
Ramin Atash
3   Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran and Department of Stomatology and Dentistry, Erasmus Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 August 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Due to the high demand for all-ceramic restorations, monolithic zirconia restorations are nowadays frequently used. With the demand for adult orthodontic treatments, orthodontists need to be mindful of the quality of their brackets bonding to this type of material, as it requires special conditioning. This study aimed to compare different surface treatments of zirconia when bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets. The objectives are to compare the shear bond strength; the amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of the material; the incidence of adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failures; and the occurrence of zirconia fractures.

Materials and Methods Forty monolithic blocks of zirconia of a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm were prepared and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20): metallic or ceramic brackets. Each group was subsequently divided into two subgroups (n = 10) depending on the surface preparation (laser treatment or airborne particle abrasion): SMB (airborne particle abrasion, metal bracket), SCB (airborne particle abrasion, ceramic bracket), LMB (laser; metal bracket), and LCB (laser, ceramic bracket). The samples were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index and the occurrence of zirconia fractures and different types of failures were assessed by optical and electron microscopy.

Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using analysis of variance.

Results The differences were significant between the metallic (SMB, LMB) and ceramic (SCB, LCB) bracket groups with regard to shear bond strength, with respectively 23.29 ± 5.34 MPa, 21.59 ± 4.03 MPa, 20.06 ± 4.05 MPa, and 17.55 ± 3.88 MPa. In terms of surface treatment, no statistical differences were found between the different groups.

Conclusion Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia. The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength.

Keywords

zirconia - brackets - cementation - surface treatment
 

  • References

  • 1 Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999; 20 (01) 1-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Garvie RC, Hannink RH, Pascoe RT. Ceramic steel?. Nature 1975; 258: 703-704
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20 (04) 383-388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res 2013; 57 (04) 236-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stober T, Bermejo JL, Rammelsberg P, Schmitter M. Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil 2014; 41 (04) 314-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007; 35 (11) 819-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vicente Prieto M, Gomes ALC, Montero Martín J, Alvarado Lorenzo A, Seoane Mato V, Albaladejo Martínez A. The effect of femtosecond laser treatment on the effectiveness of resin-zirconia adhesive: an in vitro study. J Lasers Med Sci 2016; 7 (04) 214-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Buyuk SK, Kucukekenci AS. Effects of different etching methods and bonding procedures on shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets applied to different CAD/CAM ceramic materials. Angle Orthod 2018; 88 (02) 221-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Poosti M, Jahanbin A, Mahdavi P, Mehrnoush S. Porcelain conditioning with Nd:YAG and Er:YAG laser for bracket bonding in orthodontics. Lasers Med Sci 2012; 27 (02) 321-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Grewal Bach GK, Torrealba Y, Lagravère MO. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2014; 84 (03) 555-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Akın H, Ozkurt Z, Kırmalı O, Kazazoglu E, Ozdemir AK. Shear bond strength of resin cement to zirconia ceramic after aluminum oxide sandblasting and various laser treatments. Photomed Laser Surg 2011; 29 (12) 797-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Della Bona A, Borba M, Benetti P, Cecchetti D. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of a zirconia-reinforced ceramic to composite resin. Braz Oral Res 2007; 21 (01) 10-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mehta AS, Evans CA, Viana G, Bedran-Russo A, Galang-Boquiren MT. Bonding of metal orthodontic attachments to sandblasted porcelain and zirconia surfaces. BioMed Res Int 2016; 2016: 5762785
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dostalova T, Jelinkova H. Lasers in dentistry: overview and perspectives. Photomed Laser Surg 2013; 31 (04) 147-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kasraei S, Rezaei-Soufi L, Heidari B, Vafaee F. Bond strength of resin cement to CO2 and Er:YAG laser-treated zirconia ceramic. Restor Dent Endod 2014; 39 (04) 296-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Çağlar İ, Yanıkoğlu N. The effect of sandblasting, Er:YAG laser, and heat treatment on the mechanical properties of different zirconia cores. Photomed Laser Surg 2016; 34 (01) 17-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 García-Sanz V, Paredes-Gallardo V, Bellot-Arcís C. et al. Effects of femtosecond laser and other surface treatments on the bond strength of metallic and ceramic orthodontic brackets to zirconia. PLoS One 2017; 12 (10) e0186796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kwak JY, Jung HK, Choi IK, Kwon TY. Orthodontic bracket bonding to glazed full-contour zirconia. Restor Dent Endod 2016; 41 (02) 106-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mehmeti B, Azizi B, Kelmendi J, Iljazi-Shahiqi D, Alar Ž, Anić-Milošević S. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to zirconium crowns. Acta Stomatol Croat 2017; 51 (02) 99-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim J, Park C, Lee JS, Ahn J, Lee Y. The effect of various types of mechanical and chemical preconditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets on zirconia restorations. Scanning 2017; 2017: 6243179
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hobson RS, Ledvinka J, Meechan JG. The effect of moisture and blood contamination on bond strength of a new orthodontic bonding material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120 (01) 54-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Montasser MA, Drummond JL. Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod 2009; 79 (04) 773-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar