Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 883

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH  
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 789-794
Influence of ceramic surface treatment on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets


Department of Orthodontics, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia and UNIP- Câmpus, Goiânia, Brazil

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission10-Aug-2009
Date of Decision26-Jul-2010
Date of Acceptance30-Aug-2010
Date of Web Publication3-May-2013
 

   Abstract 

Objective: To compare four different surface treatment methods and determine which produces adequate bond strength between ceramic brackets and facets of porcelain (feldspathic), and evaluate the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores.
Materials and Methods: Ten facets of porcelain specimens with glazed surfaces were used for each group. The specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following treatment conditions of the porcelain surface: (1) no surface treatment (control group), (2) fine diamond bur + orthophosphoric acid gel 37%, (3) hydrofluoric acid (HFL) 10%, and (4) HFL 10% + silane. Ceramic brackets were bonded with the adhesive cement Transbond XT. The shear bond strength values were measured on a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min.
Results: There was a significant difference (P<0.05) between the control group and all other groups. There was no significant difference (P<0.05) between treated porcelain surface with diamond bur + orthophosphoric acid gel 37% (4.8 MPa) and HFL 10% (6.1 MPa), but the group treated with HFL 10% had clinically acceptable bond strength values. The group treated with HFL 10% + silane (17.5 MPa) resulted in a statistically significant higher tensile bond strength (P<0.05). In group 4, 20% of the porcelain facets displayed damage.
Conclusion: Etching of the surface with HFL increased the bond strength values. Silane application was recommended to bond a ceramic bracket to the porcelain surface in order to achieve bond strengths that are clinically acceptable.

Keywords: Shear bond strength, ceramic brackets, porcelain, surface treatment

How to cite this article:
Ramos TF, Lenza MA, Reges RV, Freitas G. Influence of ceramic surface treatment on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:789-94

How to cite this URL:
Ramos TF, Lenza MA, Reges RV, Freitas G. Influence of ceramic surface treatment on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Dec 4];23:789-94. Available from: https://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2012/23/6/789/111261
The demand for orthodontic treatment in adults has greatly increased, and this presented new problems to the orthodontist. Patients demanded more esthetically pleasing appliances, and ceramic brackets were introduced to help meet this need. But as the demand for adult orthodontic treatment increases and the popularity of esthetic dentistry grows, orthodontists are often faced with the challenge of bonding attachments on teeth restored with resin or veneering porcelain. [1] However, the bond strength between the brackets and the porcelain surface is still a problem in adult orthodontics. The brackets used are generally made of polycarbonate or monocrystalline or polycrystalline ceramic materials.[2]

All Currently Available Ceramic brackets are composed of aluminum oxide. According to their distinct differences during fabrication, two types of ceramic brackets are available; the polycrystalline alumina and the single crystal alumina brackets. Because the production of polycrystalline brackets is less complicated, these brackets are more readily available at present. [3]

The dental porcelains are classified into feldspathic porcelains, aluminous porcelains, and glass ceramics. The conventional feldspathic porcelains are made of the mineral feldspar with some additions for color and translucency additives and contain silica (SiO 2 ) and alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) with small amounts of K 2 O and Na 2 O to control expansion. [4] Feldspathic porcelain is especially used in ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. The bond strength of the brackets bonded to the porcelain surfaces treated only by mechanical roughening with diamond burs (1.6 MPa) or sandblasting (2.8 MPa) was significantly lower than the clinically accepted values. [5]

The placement of an orthodontic bracket on a tooth surface can be achieved by banding or bonding. Both methods of bracket attachment have proved successful. However, the bonding technique has certain distinct advantages that cannot be attained by the use of banded bracket systems. These advantages include improved oral hygiene, reduction of soft tissue irritation, decreased risk of tooth decalcification, improved esthetics, and decreased chair time. [6],[7] It has been suggested that the clinically adequate bond strength of an orthodontic bracket to enamel should be 6-8 MPa. [8]

To achieve sufficient bond strength of brackets to porcelain, the pretreatment of the porcelain surface is a prerequisite. The retention on porcelain is achieved through micromechanical retention, chemical retention, or a combination of both. The micromechanical retention can be obtained through roughening or microretention procedures. The roughening of the surface can be achieved with diamond points, diamond disks, rough stones, sandblasting, and etching with hydrofluoric acid (HFL) 9% or orthophosphoric acid gel 37%. Mechanical retention, obtained with a coarse diamond bur, is necessary to increase bond strength, which can be further improved by chemical bonding with a silane priming agent. [9] The chemical retention can be obtained with the use of a silane coupling agent or with tribochemical silica coating. [9],[10],[11]

A glazed porcelain surface is not responsive to adhesive penetration and, if the surface is roughened to provide mechanical retention, it may not be acceptable after debonding. [12] Some studies did not notice significant differences between the bond strengths of glazed and unglazed porcelains. [13],[14]

Conventional acid etching (orthophosphoric acid gel 37%) is ineffective in the preparation of porcelain surfaces for the mechanical retention of orthodontic attachments. The use of HFL 10% increases the bond strength with and without silanization. [15],[16],[17],[18]

Silanes provide a chemical link between dental porcelain and composite resin, and the organic portion of the molecule increases the wettability of the porcelain surface, thereby providing a closer micromechanical bond. [1] HFL reacts with silane to form a sialnol, a chemically reactive form of the compound that adsorbs to the surface of the porcelain and lowers its bond energy and wettability. [1] Many studies have demonstrated that the use of silane coupling agents, or porcelain priming agents, will increase the strength of the bond to dental porcelain. [19],[20] Only two studies suggest that silane does not significantly affect the bond strength. [21],[22],[23]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare "in vitro " various surface treatment methods and to define which may produce adequate bond strength between ceramic brackets and porcelain. The types of failures observed after debonding on the porcelain-resin and resin-bracket interfaces were also evaluated.


   Materials and Methods Top


Collection, storage, and preparation of the teeth

In this research, 40 bovine teeth (inferior incisors) were utilized, divided into 4 groups. After the extraction and removal of the soft tissue, the teeth were stored in thymol solution (0.1% concentration) in ambient temperature, for a period of 1 week for biological control. The teeth were scraped with periodontal curette (Duflex, SS White, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) for the elimination of the remainders of periodontal tissue. The final debridement was carried out with goblets of rubbers (KG Sorensen, Barueri, SP, Brazil) and rock pomes with fine granulation (SS White, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) in low rotation (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil), followed by washing with water spray. The dental elements had been stored in distilled water until the end of the experiment.

Preparation of the test bodies

A preparation in the vestibular surface of the tooth was carried out to receive a porcelain facet of 5 mm of height, 5 mm of width, and 1 mm of thickness. After the preparation, a porcelain facet (In Ceram, Vita, Germany) was fabricated, glazed, and then cemented in the prepared cavity.

The teeth were enclosed in pipes of PVC (Akros, Joinville, SC, Brazil) with 25 mm of internal diameter, 26 mm of height, and embedded in self-curing acrylic resin (Jet Classic, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil) up to the level of the cementoenamel junction. During the embedding procedure of the samples (In the moment of the inclusion), a acrylic positioner was fixed in the vestibular face of the tooth through wax utility in an angle of 90° (Wilson, Cotia, SP, Brazil) and in the superior part of the PVC ring, so that the vestibular faces of the teeth were perpendicular to the base and parallel to the force during the shear test.

After 48 h, a conditioning of the tooth with 37% phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco, Germany) was carried out and one layer of monocomponent adhesive (Solobond, Voco, Germany) was applied as instructed by the manufacturer. In the internal surface of the facet of the porcelain the silane (Bifix DC, Voco, Germany) agent was applied after the conditioning with HFL, for 60 s. After etching the surface was cleansed with water spray and dried with oil free air spurts. The porcelain facets were cemented to the tooth with resin cement (BIFIX QM, Voco, Germany), as instructed by the manufacturer. After that, the samples were randomly distributed in four groups.

Experimental groups

Four experimental groups were formed [Table 1]. All test bodies were at first treated for prophylaxis with Robson brush and rock pomes, with fine granulation (SS White, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) in low rotation (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil), and then washed for 30 s and dried with oil-free air spurts.
Table 1: Mean, standard deviation, and test of significance of mean values between different study groups

Click here to view


Group 1: no surface treatment of the porcelain.
Group 2: surface roughened with a diamond bur 3118 FF (KG Sorensen, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and processed with phosphoric acid 37% (Vococid, Voco, Germany) for 30 s.
Group 3: etching with HFL 10% (Dentsply, USA) for 1 min.
Group 4: etching with HFL 10% (Dentsply, USA) for 1 min and application of 2 layers of silanization agent (Ceramic Bond Bifix DC, Voco, Germany).

Bond of brackets

A right superior central incisor all-ceramic bracket (polycrystalline translucent alumina) on the prescription of Roth was used (code: U1R-243001, Abzil-Lancer, Brazil). The brackets used were fixed to the previously treated porcelain surface with the composite resin Transbond XT (3M Dental Division, Sumaré, SP, Brazil) in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer. The same positioner of acrylic was used in an angle of 90° with the vestibular face of the tooth and the superior part of the PVC ring, and the adhesive luting agent was polymerized for 40 s with the light-cure unit (Ultraled, Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil) with an intensity of 470 light of mW/cm 2 . After that, the test bodies were stored in distilled water for 48 h.

Test of shear

The shear test was carried out in a universal testing machine EMIC DL 2000 (Equipment and Systems of Testing LTDA, São Jose of the Pinhais, SP, Brazil) of Department of Metrelogy Centrals Electrical de Furnas S.A. A specific hammer for the coupling of the load cell of 50 N was connected to the universal testing machine. Each test body was fixed to a metallic base for stability during the mechanical testing. The body was located in the machine to keep the active tip of the hammer on the interface facet/bracket and parallel to the surface of the tooth. The debonding was carried out with the machine operating at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The necessary load for debonding was registered in millivolts/volts (mV/V) using a reading machine connected to the universal testing machine. The load registered in mV/V was then converted to Newtons using a mathematical equation. After that, the values in Newtons were converted into kilogram force (kgf) multiplying for factor 0.1026. The value of shear strength in kgf/mm² was calculated through the formula: R = F/A, where:

R = Shear strength (kgf/mm²)
F = necessary load for debonding bracket/porcelain (kgf)
A = Area of the base of bracket (13 mm²).

The shear strength values were transformed to Megapascal (MPa).

Index of the remaining adhesive

After debonding, the surfaces of the porcelain were visualized under a magnifying glass so that the analysis of the Index of Adesive Remanescente (ARI) was evaluated, obeying the scores developed by Artun and Bergland [Table 2].
Table 2: Adhesive Remnant Index

Click here to view


Scanning electronic microscopy

With the illustrative objective, one sample of each experimental group was selected randomly for analysis in scanning electronic microscope (500×) (JEOL ® Model JSM-840A, Tokyo, Japan) of the University of Brasilia (UNB), Institute of Biological Sciences, Brasíllia. The objective of this evaluation was to visualize the surface of the dental porcelain after the debonding of bracket [Figure 1], [Figure 2] and [Figure 3].
Figure 1: G1(Control) Uniform surface with few irregularities (SEM 500x)

Click here to view
Figure 2: G2 (diamond bur +37% phosphoric acid) More irregularities and shallow groves (SEM 500x)

Click here to view
Figure 3: G3 (10% hydrofluoric acid) More irregularities than G2 and presence of deep groves (SEM 500x)

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

The analysis of variance and the Tukey test for comparison between the groups were used for the statistical analysis of the shear strength values, with the significance level predetermined at 5%. The ARI was also analyzed.


   Results Top


The values of shear strength for each type of treatment of the porcelain surface are illustrated in [Table 3]. For the control group (G1), this value was statistically inferior in relation to all others groups. Between the groups G2 and G3, no statistically significant differences were found; however, from the clinical point of view the average value of the shear strength of the G2 does not reach the minimum bond strength described by Reynolds and von Fraunhofer [8] as ideal for clinical use, while the G3 reached this minimum value. The G4 was statistically superior in relation to all others groups. [Figure 4] represents these values in graphic form.
Figure 4: Mean shear bond strength (MPa) of ceramic/ceramic bracket relative to surface treatment

Click here to view
Table 3: Percentage distribution of sample according to the ARI

Click here to view


The distribution of the frequency in percentage of each group of the values of the index of the remaining adhesive is described in [Table 3]. In this table we observe that for the control group most of the resin remnants were adhered to the bracket after debonding, and no or less than half of the resin remained on the surface of the porcelain. This is considered an adhesive failure between the resin and dental porcelain. For group 2, in 40% of the cases the behavior was the same as of the control group and in 60% less than half of the resin remained adhered to the porcelain, which represents a cohesive failure of the resin. For group 3 the same behavior of the control group was observed in 20% of the samples, and in 80% a cohesive failure of the resin was observed, from which, 60% had less than half of the resin adhered to the porcelain and in 20% of the samples more than half of the resin remained adhered to the porcelain. In group 4 in 80% of the samples cohesive failures of the resin occurred, wherein most of these (50%) more than half of the resin remained adhered to the porcelain. In group 4 in 20% of the samples the whole mass of the resin remained adhered to the porcelain, representing an adhesive failure between the resin and the bracket. In relation to the damages to the surface of the porcelain, only 2 facets of group 4 revealed chipping.{Table 4}


   Discussion Top


As the demand for adult orthodontic treatment increases and the popularity of esthetic dentistry grows, orthodontists are often faced with the challenge of bonding attachments on teeth restored with porcelain. [2] The bond strength should be high enough to resist accidental debonding during treatment, but also low enough so that no excessive force is necessary during debonding at the end of the treatment, since the restorations generally remain in the mouth after treatment. [2]

This work used bovine teeth due the easiness of acquisition, since the acquisition of complete permanent human incisors is practically impossible. Concerning the use of bovine teeth, the research of Romano et al.[23] concluded that the bovine incisors can be used in laboratory tests without compromising the legitimacy of the test. However, in this research, this was not relevant, since the brackets were fixed on the porcelain facet, which was cemented to the bovine tooth. The decision to use 10 specimens per group was made partly due to the high cost of the porcelain crowns, but is well justified by the acceptable standard deviations in shear bond strengths and by the high significant values for intergroup statistical tests. [1],[7] In the present study, brackets for incisors were used because their flat bases ensured optimal adaptation on the porcelain surface.

The mean shear bond strengths of ceramic brackets to porcelain surfaces achieved in this study for groups 1 and 2 could not be considered sufficient for clinical applications. Although the groups G2 and G3 did not have statistically significant difference, from the clinical point of view, the average value of the shear strength group 3 reached the minimum value of bond strength described by Reynolds [8] as ideal for clinical use. One study showed that the decisive factors affecting bond strength, in order of significance, were etching, priming, and then thermocycling. [19] Another study showed that the effect of thermocycling was not significant. [12] Only group 4 exceeded these limits and therefore could be considered sufficient for clinical applications.

In the present study we found that surface roughening with a diamond bur plus application of 37% phosphoric acid did not achieve bond strengths that should be clinically successful. One study agrees with this finding and suggests that surface roughening without silane treatment may not produce clinically acceptable bond strengths. [12] Another study concluded that the preparation of the porcelain surface with sandblasting is better than that with a point diamond bur. [10] Because of the risk of damaging the porcelain during pretreatment or debonding, roughening of the surfaces must be avoided. [4],[13],[22] Others studies found that the conventional acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid produced lower bond strength values, [2],[15],[16] which is in agreement with the present study.

The findings of the present study that HFL is more effective than 37% phosphoric acid is in agreement with others. [2],[15],[16] The HFL etching provides excellent micromechanical retention for bonding to feldspathic porcelains. [4],[15] When the feldspathic ceramic surface was treated with HFL, uniformly distributed pores and shallow irregularities were clearly observed. The chemical etching process can be explained by the preferential reaction of the HFL with the silica phase of feldspathic ceramic. [11] Another study proved that it was not necessary to use HFL to achieve satisfactory bond strength, which is highly toxic and increases porcelain surface damage. [7] Karan et al. found that the bond strength obtained with HFL etching was satisfactory and comparable to the values achieved with silicatization. [11] In a study comparing HFL or microetching, HFL resulted in significantly higher bond strength than conditioning by microetching. [17] HFL 9.6% is better than sandblasting for roughening the surface of porcelain, but the health risks should be considered. [10]

The results of this in vitro study indicate that the use of silane increases the bond strength values; and conditioning with HFL 10% for 1 min, followed by the application of silane was considered the best porcelain preparation method. These results are in accordance with other studies. [1],[10],[14],[16],[18],[19] The use of silane prior to bonding was the single most important factor in determining satisfactory bond strength. [7] Another study showed that shear and tensile debonding forces for glazed porcelain with the use of silane primer, were comparable to those reported in the literature for enamel, thus clinically sufficient. [20] Barbosa et al.[9] found that surface roughening with a diamond bur followed by the silane application produces clinically acceptable bond strengths. In contradiction, other studies revealed that the use of silane did not significantly affect the bond strength and may be an unnecessary additional step. [5],[21],[22]

Ideally the debonding technique should result in adhesive failure at the porcelain-resin interface, leaving the original glazed surface untouched. However, clinical experience has shown that bond failure usually occurs at the resin-bracket interface, leaving residual composite to be refinished. [12] Modes of failure are summarized in [Table 3] In group 1 failure was mainly adhesive at the porcelain-resin interface, showing that this was the weakest point. However, in groups 2, 3, and 4, failures (60%, 80%, and 80%, respectively) were cohesive in the resin layer. Adhesive failure at the bracket-resin interface was found in group 4 (20%). In group 4, 20% of the porcelain facets displayed damage. These results are in accordance with a study that found that all fractures were cohesive in the composite resin layer (70%) or adhesive between the bracket and the resin (30%), but no damage on the surface of porcelain was reported. The cohesive failure of this present study can be explained by the mechanical retentive structure of the base of the brackets used. Ceramic brackets that offer a mechanical bond with the adhesive cement have retentive grooves with edge angles of 90°. On application of shear debonding force, part of the resin is left on the tooth and part on the grooved bracket. [3]

Eustaquio et al.[13] did not notice significant differences between the bond strengths of glazed and unglazed porcelains. The use of silane without mechanical removal of the glaze from the porcelain surface results in the least damage to the porcelain and still demonstrates acceptable bond strengths. [14] Zelos et al.[20] showed that preservation of the glazing allowed an almost ideal polishing of the porcelain surface after debonding. Other studies agree with this finding. [1],[7],[10],[14] Only two studies recommend deglazing the porcelain surface by sandblasting. [4],[18]


   Conclusion Top


  • This study did not find an ideal conditioning method without limitations. Many factors affect bond strength; caution must be exercised in understanding the characteristics of the surface conditioning methods, the cements, and brackets used.
  • Surface roughening with a diamond bur plus phosphoric acid did not produce sufficient bond strengths.
  • HFL increases the bond strengths. The mean shear debonding forces are comparable with forces reported in the literature for the ceramics brackets bonded to enamel but should be carefully interpreted in order to be considered sufficient for clinical applications (not thermocycled).
  • HFL combined with silane produced the most retentive surface.
  • In relation to the ARI most of the failures had been cohesive in the resin layer, except for the control group, where adhesive failure occurred in 80% of the samples.

   Acknowledgments Top


Furnas Centrais Elétricas S.A. (Sr. Leandro Mattiazzo and Sr. Pedro de Carvalho) - Aparecida de Goiânia- Goiás, Brazil, for its support in developing this study.

Gilmar Roberto Silva (dental prosthetic) and Wilcos (Vita labor), for the support in the laboratorial part of the ceramic.

 
   References Top

1.Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:617-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Özcan M, Vallittu PK, Peltomäki T. Bonding polycarbonate brackets to ceramic: effects of substrate treatment on bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:220-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:34-40.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Zachrisson Y, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:420-30.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W. Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:540-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Andreasen GF, Stieg MA. Bonding and debonding brackets to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:341-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Bourke BM, Orth FDSM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 1999;26:285-90.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding in orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod 1975;3:91-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Barbosa VLT, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:159-64.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Atsü SS, Gelgör IE, Sahin V. Effects of silica coating and silane surface conditioning on the bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to enamel. Angle Orthod 2006;76:857-62.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Karan S, Büyükyilmaz T, Toroglu MS. Orthodontic bonding to several ceramic surfaces: Are there acceptable alternatives to conventional methods? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:144-8  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Smith GA, Mcinnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux WR. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain- Bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:245-52.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:421-5.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Nebbe B, Stein E. Orthodontic brackets bonded to glazed and deglazed porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:431-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Phiton MM, Oliveira MV, Ruellas AC. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel under different surface treatment conditions. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:127-30.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Valleta R, Prisco D, Ambrosio L, Martina R. Evaluation of the debonding strength of orthodontic brackets using three different bonding systems. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:571-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Harari D, Shapira-Davis S, Gillis I. Tensile bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain facets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:551-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam and porcelain. J Clinic Orthod 1993;27:661-74.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Huang TH, Kao CT. The shear bond strength of composite brackets on porcelain teeth. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:433-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of the ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:10-21.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Newman SM, Dressler KB, Grenadier MR. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to esthetic restorative materials using a silane. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;86:503-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Zachrisson BU. Orthodontic bonding to artificial tooth surfaces: clinical versus laboratory findings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:592-4.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac S, Turk T. The effect of a light-emitting on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to feldspathic porcelain with different curing times. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:299-303.  Back to cited text no. 23
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Tatiana Fernandes Ramos
Department of Orthodontics, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia and UNIP- Câmpus, Goiânia
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.111261

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Effect of two different primers on the shear bond strength of metallic brackets to zirconia ceramic
Alexander Franz,Modesto Raabe,Bledar Lilaj,Rinet Dauti,Andreas Moritz,Dieter Müßig,Barbara Cvikl
BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to surface-treated feldspathic porcelain after thermocycling
Pinar Cevik,Oguz Eraslan,Kursat Eser,Suleyman Tekeli
The International Journal of Artificial Organs. 2018; 41(3): 160
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to surface-treated feldspathic porcelain after thermocycling
Pinar Cevik,Oguz Eraslan,Kursat Eser,Suleyman Tekeli
The International Journal of Artificial Organs. 2018; 41(3): 160
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Four chemical methods of porcelain conditioning and their influence over bond strength and surface integrity
João Paulo Fragomeni Stella,Andrea Becker Oliveira,Lincoln Issamu Nojima,Mariana Marquezan
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2015; 20(4): 51
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Effects of Various Acid-Silane Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Metal Brackets to Porcelain Crowns
Hsiu-Ming Hsu,Chen-Jung Chang,Jia-Kuang Liu
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering. 2015; 35(3): 375
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Four chemical methods of porcelain conditioning and their influence over bond strength and surface integrity
João Paulo Fragomeni Stella,Andrea Becker Oliveira,Lincoln Issamu Nojima,Mariana Marquezan
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2015; 20(4): 51
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Effects of Various Acid-Silane Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Metal Brackets to Porcelain Crowns
Hsiu-Ming Hsu,Chen-Jung Chang,Jia-Kuang Liu
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering. 2015; 35(3): 375
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
   Acknowledgments
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2801    
    Printed67    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded110    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 7    

Recommend this journal