Original article
Tensile bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain facets

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)56913-4Get rights and content

Abstract

The number of adults requesting orthodontic treatment is constantly growing, with a resultant increase in the need to bond brackets to porcelain restorations. Because adults often favor more esthetic ceramic brackets, it is important to evaluate the bond strength of ceramic to porcelain restorations and the integrity of the porcelain surface after debonding. Eighty porcelain facets, resembling mandibular incisors, were used. The surfaces were conditioned by either hydrofluoric acid or microetching. Mandibular incisor ceramic brackets were bonded with 1 of 2 adhesives: Ideal 1 without silane or Right-On with silane. Debonding was performed with a tensile force on a universal testing machine. The mode of bond failure was determined macroscopically, and the integrity of the porcelain facets was evaluated microscopically. The results showed that the type of porcelain conditioning technique affects the tensile bond strength of both adhesives. Conditioning with hydrofluoric acid resulted in significantly higher bond strength (Ideal 1, 7.7 ± 3.0; Right-On, 7.1 ± 2.6) than conditioning by microetching (Ideal 1, 4.1 ± 2.3; Right-On, 3.8 ± 2.4; P < .05). The mode of bond failure was mainly adhesive, and the porcelain facets were not damaged during debonding. This study shows that both Ideal 1 and Right-On are suitable for bonding ceramic brackets to porcelain restorations, if the porcelain has been conditioned with hydrofluoric acid.

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)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.