OBJECTIVE: To compare the shear bond strengths (SBS) of stainless steel brackets bonded to artificially-aged composite restorations after different surface treatments. METHODS:Forty-five premolar teeth were restored with a nano-hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram), stored in deionised water for one week and randomly divided into three equal groups: Group I, he restorations were exposed to 5 per cent hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds; Group II, the restorations were abraded with a micro-etcher (50 Iim alumina particles); Group III, the restorations were roughened with a coarse diamond bur. Similar premolar brackets were bonded to each restoration using the same resin adhesive and the specimens were then cycled in deionised water between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C (500 cycles). The shear bond strengths were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The teeth and brackets were examined under a stereomicroscope and the adhesive remnants on the teeth scored with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). RESULTS: Specimens treated with the diamond bur had a significantly higher SBS (Mean: 18.45 +/- 3.82 MPa) than the group treated with hydrofluoric acid (Mean: 12.85 +/- 5.20 MPa). The mean SBS difference between the air-abrasion (Mean: 15.36 +/- 4.92 MPa) and hydrofluoric acid groups was not significant. High ARI scores occurred following abrasion with a diamond bur (100 per cent) and micro-etcher (80 per cent). In approximately two thirds of the teeth no adhesive was left on the restoration after surface treatment with hydofluoric acid. CONCLUSION: Surface treatment with a diamond bur resulted in a high bond strength between stainless steel brackets and artificially-aged composite restorations and was considered to be a safe and effective method of surface treatment. Most of the adhesive remained on the tooth following surface treatment with either the micro-etcher or the diamond bur.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the shear bond strengths (SBS) of stainless steel brackets bonded to artificially-aged composite restorations after different surface treatments. METHODS: Forty-five premolar teeth were restored with a nano-hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram), stored in deionised water for one week and randomly divided into three equal groups: Group I, he restorations were exposed to 5 per cent hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds; Group II, the restorations were abraded with a micro-etcher (50 Iim alumina particles); Group III, the restorations were roughened with a coarse diamond bur. Similar premolar brackets were bonded to each restoration using the same resin adhesive and the specimens were then cycled in deionised water between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C (500 cycles). The shear bond strengths were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The teeth and brackets were examined under a stereomicroscope and the adhesive remnants on the teeth scored with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). RESULTS: Specimens treated with the diamond bur had a significantly higher SBS (Mean: 18.45 +/- 3.82 MPa) than the group treated with hydrofluoric acid (Mean: 12.85 +/- 5.20 MPa). The mean SBS difference between the air-abrasion (Mean: 15.36 +/- 4.92 MPa) and hydrofluoric acid groups was not significant. High ARI scores occurred following abrasion with a diamond bur (100 per cent) and micro-etcher (80 per cent). In approximately two thirds of the teeth no adhesive was left on the restoration after surface treatment with hydofluoric acid. CONCLUSION: Surface treatment with a diamond bur resulted in a high bond strength between stainless steel brackets and artificially-aged composite restorations and was considered to be a safe and effective method of surface treatment. Most of the adhesive remained on the tooth following surface treatment with either the micro-etcher or the diamond bur.
Authors: Amir Hossein Mirhashemi; Nasim Chiniforush; Nastaran Sharifi; Amir Mehdi Hosseini Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.161