» Articles » PMID: 39553625

Effect of Different Surface Conditioning Methods and Low PH Solutions on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Newly Introduced CAD/CAM Materials

Overview
Journal Heliyon
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2024 Nov 18
PMID 39553625
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic and metallic orthodontic brackets bonded to lithium disilicate ceramics or hybrid ceramics and subjected to different surface conditioning treatments.

Materials And Methods: In total, 300 specimens were fabricated from GC LiSi (lithium disilicate) and GC Cerasmart (hybrid) ceramic blocks. The specimens were divided into four groups according to the following surface treatments: hydrofluoric acid (HF); sandblasting with 50 μm aluminum oxide; Monobond Etch and Prime; and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er-YAG) laser. Metal (Victory Series) and ceramic (Clarity) brackets were bonded using an orthodontic adhesive resin (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek, CA, USA). The specimens were then stored in three different mediums (artificial saliva, mouth rinse, and gastric juice) and thermocycled. An SBS test was performed after 1 week. The surface morphology was examined after the conditioning treatments using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, -test, and Duncan test.

Results: The SBS data revealed that the type of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) block and surface conditioning method significantly affected the SBS. The highest SBS was recorded (10.112 MPa) for the HF-treated hybrid ceramic blocks stored in the saliva medium, while the lowest SBS (1.862 MPa) was reported for the Er-YAG laser-treated lithium disilicate ceramic blocks stored in the gastric juice medium. GC Cerasmart exhibited better bond strength than that of GC LiSi; however, no significant difference was observed between the ceramic and metal brackets.

Conclusion: The CAD/CAM material, surface conditioning method, and medium affect the SBS.

Citing Articles

Bond strength of conventional resin-based adhesive cement and self-adhesive resin cement to CAD-CAM restorative materials.

Senol M, Gurbuz A, Oyar P BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):296.

PMID: 39994593 PMC: 11853663. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05527-z.

References
1.
Dimitriadi M, Zafiropoulou M, Zinelis S, Silikas N, Eliades G . Silane reactivity and resin bond strength to lithium disilicate ceramic surfaces. Dent Mater. 2019; 35(8):1082-1094. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.05.002. View

2.
Bajraktarova-Valjakova E, Korunoska-Stevkovska V, Georgieva S, Ivanovski K, Bajraktarova-Misevska C, Mijoska A . Hydrofluoric Acid: Burns and Systemic Toxicity, Protective Measures, Immediate and Hospital Medical Treatment. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6(11):2257-2269. PMC: 6290397. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.429. View

3.
Miersch S, Konig A, Mehlhorn S, Fuchs F, Hahnel S, Rauch A . Adhesive luting of orthodontic devices to silica-based ceramic crowns-comparison of shear bond strength and surface properties. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 24(9):3009-3016. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03168-5. View

4.
Taufer C, Della Bona A . Edge chipping resistance of ceramics bonded to a dentine analogue. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018; 90:587-590. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.11.010. View

5.
Sallam R, Arnout E . Effect of Er: YAG laser etching on shear bond strength of orthodontic bracket. Saudi Med J. 2018; 39(9):922-927. PMC: 6201001. DOI: 10.15537/smj.2018.9.22793. View