Effects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength between ceramic systems and metal brackets

• Published in: Journal of adhesion science and technology 2017-05, Vol.31 (10), p.1105-1115
• Main Authors: Cevik, Pinar, Karacam, Nejla, Eraslan, Oguz, Sari, Zafer
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acid etching; Adhesive bonding; Antimony; Bond strength; Bonding strength; Brackets; Ceramic bonding; Ceramics; Composite materials; Conditioning; metal brackets; Nd:YAG laser; Shear; shear bond strength; silane treatment; surface conditioning
• ISSN: 0169-4243; 1568-5616
• DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1245074

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different kinds of ceramic surfaces after different surface conditioning methods. A total of 120 ceramic disks were divided into two main groups in terms of feldspathic or lithium disilicate. Each ceramic group was further subdivided into six subgroups depending on surface treatment (n = 10). The ceramic surfaces were conditioned by one of the following methods: Group C: control group; Group P: %37.5 orthophosphoric acid; Group HF: %9.6 hydrofluoric acid; Group L: Nd-YAG laser irradiation; Group SB: sandblasting with 50 µm Al 2 O 3 particles; and Group DB: grinding with a diamond bur. Surface roughness value was evaluated with a digital profilometer. Surface topographies of one specimen from each group were observed by atomic force microscopy (AFM) after surface treatments. All samples were primed with silane before the bracket bonding, including the control group. Metal brackets were bonded to the specimens with a light curing composite resin. The samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h and thermocycled 2500× at 5 and 55 ºC for 30 s. Shear bond strengths between the ceramic surface and the bracket were measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were classified as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = .05). Group SB had significantly rougher surface compared with the other groups in each ceramic system (p < .05), and Group SB demonstrated significantly higher shear bond strengths than other groups as well. Within the limitations of this study, surface conditioning methods, except for sandblasting and grinding, were associated with lower shear bond strengths; however, thermocycling may have had negative effects on bond strengths of specimens. Furthermore, in each ceramic system, there was a significant difference between surface-conditioning methods and surface roughness with regard to shear bond strength.