» Articles » PMID: 33213042

Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2020 Nov 20
PMID 33213042
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Bonding strategies within different brackets and dental materials are still a challenge concerning adhesion and dental surface damage. This study compared the shear and tensile bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metallic brackets to enamel, acrylic, and ceramic surfaces after thermal cycling. Dental surfaces were divided into three groups: enamel, ceramic, and acrylic. Each group received stainless-steel and ceramic brackets. After thermal cycling, specimens were randomly divided into two subgroups considering tensile (TBS) or shear bond strength (SBS) test. After the mechanical testing, scanning electron and optical microscopy were performed, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. The two-way ANOVA full factorial design was used to compare TBS, SBS, and ARI on the surface and bracket type (α = 0.05). There were significant differences in TBS, SBS, and ARI values per surface ( < 0.001 and = 0.009) and type of bracket ( = 0.025 and = 0.001). The highest mean SBS values were recorded for a ceramic bracket bonded to an acrylic surface (8.4 ± 2.3 MPa). For TBS, a ceramic bracket bonded to acrylic showed the worst performance (5.2 ± 1.8 MPa) and the highest values were found on a metallic bracket bonded to enamel. The adhesion of metallic or ceramic brackets is enough for clinical practice although the damage of the enamel surface after debonding is irreversible and harmful for the aesthetic outcome of the teeth.

Citing Articles

Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Aesthetic Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Aged Composite Restorative Resin Materials.

Sayed M Polymers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40076114 PMC: 11902532. DOI: 10.3390/polym17050621.


Simulation of oral environmental conditions through artificial aging of teeth for the assessment of enamel discoloration in orthodontics.

Irgin C BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1533.

PMID: 39709403 PMC: 11662843. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05353-9.


Application of an Antibacterial Coating Layer Amine-Terminated Hyperbranched Zirconium-Polysiloxane for Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets.

Qu Y, Lu X, Zhu T, Yu J, Zhang Z, Sun Y IET Nanobiotechnol. 2024; 2024:4391833.

PMID: 38863970 PMC: 11095072. DOI: 10.1049/2024/4391833.


Metallic vs Ceramic Bracket Failures After 12 Months of Treatment: A Prospective Clinical Trial.

Scribante A, Pascadopoli M, Gandini P, Mangia R, Spina C, Sfondrini M Int Dent J. 2024; 74(6):1371-1377.

PMID: 38744578 PMC: 11551554. DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2024.04.023.


Aesthetic impact of resin infiltration and its mechanical effect on ceramic bonding for white spot lesions.

Shu J, Huang Y, Ma X, Duan Z, Wu P, Chu S BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):365.

PMID: 38515110 PMC: 10958835. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04011-4.


References
1.
Guan G, Takano-Yamamoto T, Miyamoto M, Yamashiro T, Noguchi H, Ishikawa K . An approach to enhance the interface adhesion between an orthodontic plastic bracket and adhesive. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 23(4):425-32. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/23.4.425. View

2.
Elsaka S, Hammad S, Ibrahim N . Evaluation of stresses developed in different bracket-cement-enamel systems using finite element analysis with in vitro bond strength tests. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15(1):33. PMC: 4047763. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0033-1. View

3.
de Almeida J, Depra M, Marquezan M, Retamoso L, Tanaka O . Effects of surface treatment of provisional crowns on the shear bond strength of brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013; 18(4):29-34. DOI: 10.1590/s2176-94512013000400006. View

4.
Li J . Effect of flexural strength of orthodontic resin cement on bond strength of metal brackets to enamel surfaces. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 33(2):167-73. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq044. View

5.
Artun J, Bergland S . Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85(4):333-40. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8. View