Biomechanical evaluation between orthodontic attachment and three different materials after various surface treatments: A three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis

To determine the best bonding method of orthodontic attachment among monolithic zirconia, feldspathic porcelain, hybrid porcelain, and the impact of surface-conditioning methods using a three-dimensional optical profilometer after debonding. 56 feldspathic porcelain, 56 monolithic zirconia, and 56 h...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Angle orthodontist 2019-09, Vol.89 (5), p.742-750
Main Authors: Kurt, İrem, Çehreli, Zafer Cavit, Özçırpıcı, Ayça Arman, Şar, Çağla
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dental Bonding
Dental Porcelain
Dentistry
Materials Testing
Original
Orthodontic Brackets
Resin Cements
Shear Strength
Silanes
Silicon Dioxide
Surface Properties
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To determine the best bonding method of orthodontic attachment among monolithic zirconia, feldspathic porcelain, hybrid porcelain, and the impact of surface-conditioning methods using a three-dimensional optical profilometer after debonding. 56 feldspathic porcelain, 56 monolithic zirconia, and 56 hybrid porcelain samples were divided into four surface treatment subgroups: (1) hydrofluoric (HF) acid etch + silane, (2) Al O sandblasting + silane, (3) silicoating (SiO ), and (4) diamond bur + silane. The specimens were tested to evaluate shear bond strength (SBS). Residual composite was removed after debonding. Three-dimensional white-light interferometry was used to obtain quantitative measurements on surface roughness. The highest SBS value was found for the HF acid-etched feldspathic porcelain group. The average surface roughness values were significantly higher in all material groups in which diamond bur was applied, while roughening with Cojet provided average surface roughness values closer to the original material surface. Variations in structures of the materials and roughening techniques affected the SBS and surface roughness findings.
ISSN:0003-3219
1945-7103
DOI:10.2319/072918-547.1