American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleTensile bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain facets
Section snippets
Material and methods
Eighty glazed porcelain facets resembling mandibular incisors were prepared. The facets were made from Ceramco II Vacuum porcelain (Ceramco, Burlington, NJ) by the condensing technique and baked under vacuum at 940°C. Forty facets were conditioned with 8% HFA for 1 minute, rinsed, and dried in an air blast; the remaining 40 facets were microetched with 60 μ aluminum oxide particles at 100 psi for 3 seconds and then cleaned in an air stream.
Each group was subdivided into 2 adhesive systems:
Results
The average tensile bond strengths for the bonding systems and conditioning methods are given in Table I. A comparison of the porcelain-conditioning techniques shows that HFA with Right-On adhesive provides a statistically higher tensile force than ME with Right-On (7.1 and 3.8, respectively, P < .05). The same is true for HFA and ME with Ideal 1 (7.7 and 4.1, respectively, P < .05). A comparison of the adhesive systems after both HFA and ME conditioning shows no appreciable difference between
Discussion
This study shows that the tensile strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain facets is greatly affected by the conditioning method used. Using HFA resulted in a considerably higher tensile bond strength than ME with aluminum oxide particles. These results correspond with a recent study that showed that the most significant factor in bond strength of composite brackets to porcelain teeth is etching with HFA.15
Another advantage shown in a previous study12 is the minimal change to the
Conclusions
Conditioning porcelain with HFA before bonding results in adequate bond strength, when used with Ideal 1 or Right-On adhesive.
Both adhesive systems, Ideal 1 and Right-On, achieved adequate bond strength for orthodontic purposes.
Bonding with Ideal 1 resulted in more favorable modes of failure.
Neither the method of conditioning nor the adhesive system caused damage to the porcelain facets during debonding.
References (15)
- et al.
Orthodontic bonding to porcelainbond strength and refinishing
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1988) - et al.
Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1994) - et al.
Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to esthetic restorative materials using a silane
Am J Orthod
(1984) - et al.
Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1996) - et al.
Direct bonding to porcelain
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1995) - et al.
Orthodontic brackets bonded to glazed and deglazed porcelain surfaces
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1996) - et al.
Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2001)