Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(03): 351-355
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184161
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of bracket base design on shear bond strength to feldspathic porcelain

Kazem Dalaie
1   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Armin Mirfasihi
2   General Dentistry Student, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Solmaz Eskandarion
3   Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Sattar Kabiri
4   Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study sought to assess the effect of bracket base design on the shear bond strength (SBS) of the bracket to feldspathic porcelain. Materials and Methods: This in vitro, experimental study was conducted on 40 porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations and four different bracket base designs were bonded to these specimens. The porcelain surfaces were etched, silanized, and bonded to brackets. Specimens were thermocycler, incubated for 24 h and were subjected to SBS. Data were analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk test, Levene's test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's honest significant difference test. Adhesive remnant index was calculated and compared using Fisher's exact test. Results: One-way ANOVA showed that the SBS values were significantly different among the four groups (P < 0.001). Groups 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different, but group 3 had significantly lower SBS (P < 0.001). Fractures mostly occurred at the porcelain-adhesive interface in Groups 1 and 2 while in Groups 3 and 4, bracket-adhesive and mixed failures were more common. Conclusion: The bracket base design significantly affects the SBS to feldspathic porcelain.

Key words:

Bond strength - dental porcelain - orthodontic brackets
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Whitehouse JA. Everyday uses of adult orthodontics. Dent Today 2004; 23: 116 118, 120
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels 3rd DS. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: Results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2008; 42: 625-40
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Charles A, Senkutvan R, Ramya RS, Jacob S. Evaluation of shear bond strength with different enamel pretreatments: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2014; 25: 470-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Whitlock 3rd BO, Eick JD, Ackerman Jr. RJ, Glaros AG, Chappell RP. Shear strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 358-64
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Algera TJ, Feilzer AJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Kleverlaan CJ. A comparison of finite element analysis with in vitro bond strength tests of the bracket-cement-enamel system. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 608-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cozza P, Martucci L, De Toffol L, Penco SI. Shear bond strength of metal brackets on enamel. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 851-6
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Sorel O, El Alam R, Chagneau F, Cathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 260-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Wang WN, Li CH, Chou TH, Wang DD, Lin LH, Lin CT. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 65-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Bishara SE, Soliman MM, Oonsombat C, Laffoon JF, Ajlouni R. The effect of variation in mesh-base design on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 400-4
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Cucu M, Driessen CH, Ferreira PD. The influence of orthodontic bracket base diameter and mesh size on bond strength. SADJ 2002; 57: 16-20
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Yassaei S, Moradi F, Aghili H, Kamran MH. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain following etching with Er: YAG laser versus hydrofluoric acid. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2013; 14: e82-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Bordeaux JM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105: 552-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Reddy YG, Sharma R, Singh A, Agrawal V, Agrawal V, Chaturvedi S. The shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets: An in-vitro comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2013; 7: 1495-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Stumpf AdeS, Bergmann C, Prietsch JR, Vicenzi J. Shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets using color change adhesives. Dental Press J Orthod 2013; 18: 76-80
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Samruajbenjakul B, Kukiattrakoon B. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs to feldspathic porcelains. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 571-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Oonsombat C, Laffoon J. Bonding orthodontic brackets to porcelain using different adhesives/enamel conditioners: A comparative study. World J Orthod 2005; 6: 17-24
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar