| Literature DB >> 31137486 |
Ga-Youn Ju1, Soram Oh2, Bum-Soon Lim3, Hyun-Seung Lee4, Shin Hye Chung5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long term stability of shear bond strength (SBS) when 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) containing universal adhesive was used in the ceramic bracket bonding on dental zirconia. Twenty human maxillary incisors were collected. The ceramic bracket was bonded on the buccal enamel surface after the acid-etching and orthodontic primer application (Group CON). Sixty zirconia specimens were sintered, sandblasted and divided into three experimental groups; group CP-ceramic primer followed by an orthodontic primer; group U-universal adhesive; group CU-ceramic primer followed by a universal adhesive. For each specimen, the bracket was bonded onto the treated surface with composite resin (Transbond XT, 3M ESPE). The SBS tested before (CON0, CP0, U0, CU0) and after the artificial aging (CON1, CP1, U1, CU1). The data were statistically analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test at a significance level of 0.05. The mean SBS of CON0, CP0, U0 and CU0 were within the clinically acceptable range without significant differences. After the aging process, SBS decreased in all groups. Among the aged groups, CP1 showed the highest SBS. Based on the results, when bonding ceramic brackets to a dental zirconia surface, we can conclude that ceramic primer used with an orthodontic primer, rather than using a universal adhesive, is recommended.Entities:
Keywords: 10-MDP; dental zirconia; orthodontic bracket; resin bonding; shear bond strength; surface treatment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31137486 PMCID: PMC6566336 DOI: 10.3390/ma12101640
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Flow chart of the experiment.
Materials used in this study.
| Material | Product Name | LOT Number | Main Component | Manufacturer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zirconia | LAVA Plus | 515920 | Tetragonal polycrystalline zirconia, 3 mol% yttria, alumina | 3M ESPE, USA |
| Primer | Clearfil ceramic primer | 240010 | 3-Methacryloxypropyl trimethoxy silane, a 10-MDP, ethanol | Kuraray, Japan |
| Adhesive | Transbond XT adhesive primer | ER7BS | b TEGDMA, c bis-GMA, triphenylantimony, 4-(dimethylamino)-benzeneethanol, dl-camphorquinone, hydroquinone | 3M Unitek, USA |
| Clearfil S3 Bond | 170008 | 10-MDP a, c bis-GMA, d HEMA, hydrophobic demethacrylate, dl-camphorquinone, ethyl alcohol, water, silanated colloidal silica | Kuraray, Japan | |
| Composite Resin | Transbond XT adhesive paste | ER7BS | Silane treated quartz, c bis-GMA, bisphenol A bis (2-hydroxyethyl ether) dimethacrylate, silane-treated silica | 3M Unitek, USA |
| Etchant | Scotchbond Universal Etchant | 577060 | Water, phosphoric acid, synthetic amorphous silica, fumed, polyethylene glycol, aluminium oxide | 3M ESPE, USA |
Abbreviations: a 10-MDP, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; b TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; c bisGMA, bisphenol-A-diglycidylether dimethacrylate; d HEMA, hydroxyethyl methacrylate.
Adhesive remnant index (ARI) score and criterion.
| ARI Score | Criterion |
|---|---|
| 0 | No adhesive left on the tooth |
| 1 | Less than half of the adhesive left on the tooth |
| 2 | More than half of the adhesive left on the tooth |
| 3 | All adhesive left on the tooth, with a distinct impression of the bracket mesh |
| 4 | Enamel fracture |
Figure 2Field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) images of surface of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) before; ((a) ×500; (b) ×5000) and after alumina sandblasting; ((c) ×500; (d) ×5000).
Figure 3Confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) images of zirconia surface before (a,b) and after (c,d) the alumina sandblasting. The height difference is graded in colour (b,d).
Comparison of shear bond strength (mean ± SD (range)) of all groups.
| Group | Shear Bond Strength (MPa) | Group | Shear Bond Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CON0 | 9.59 ± 1.77 (8.32–10.86) | CON1 | 5.65 ± 1.24 (4.76–6.54) |
| CP0 | 9.78 ± 1.94 (8.40–11.18) | CP1 | 8.16 ± 1.78 (6.88–9.43) |
| U0 | 9.86 ± 1.33 (8.90–10.81) | U1 | 4.99 ± 0.99 (4.28–5.70) |
| CU0 | 9.16 ± 0.78 (8.60–9.71) | CU1 | 4.31 ± 1.02 (3.58–5.03) |
Figure 4Shear bond strength values obtained when orthodontic ceramic bracket was bonded to enamel (CON0, CON1) or Y-TZP (CP0, CP1, U0, U1, CU0, CU1), with or without thermocycling (aging). The vertical bars indicate the standard deviations. There are significant differences in SBS between the groups marked with different letters A, a and b (p < 0.05).
The percentage (%) of ARI scores in the groups after shear bond strength test.
| Without Aging | ARI Score | With Aging | ARI Score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| CON0 | – | 20 | – | 80 | CON1 | 10 | 20 | 10 | 60 |
| CP0 | – | – | – | 100 | CP1 | – | – | – | 100 |
| U0 | – | – | – | 100 | U1 | – | 40 | – | 60 |
| CU0 | – | – | – | 100 | CU1 | – | 40 | – | 60 |
Figure 5Images of failure interface (×30) without- and with aging: (a,i) enamel surface; (b–d,j–l) Y-TZP surface; (e–h) and (m–p) debonded bracket surface. Abbreviations: R, resin; rr, resin captured by retentive beads of bracket.