Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 2/2016

01-03-2016 | Original Article

Shear bond strength of brackets on restorative materials

Comparison on various dental restorative materials using the universal primer Monobond® Plus

Authors: Thomas Ebert, Laura Elsner, Ursula Hirschfelder, Sebastian Hanke

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this work was to analyze surfaces consisting of different restorative materials for shear bond strength (SBS) and failure patterns of metal and ceramic brackets. Bonding involved the use of a universal primer (Monobond® Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent).

Materials and methods

Six restorative materials were tested, including one composite resin (Clearfil Majesty™ Posterior, Kuraray Noritake Dental), one glass–ceramic material (IPS Empress® Esthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent), one oxide-ceramic material (CORiTEC Zr transpa Disc, imes-icore), two base-metal alloys (remanium® star, Dentaurum; Colado® CC, Ivoclar Vivadent), and one palladium-based alloy (Callisto® 75 Pd, Ivoclar Vivadent). Bovine incisors served as controls. Both metal and ceramic brackets (discovery®/discovery® pearl; Dentaurum) were bonded to the restorative surfaces after sandblasting and pretreatment with Monobond® Plus. A setup modified from DIN 13990-2 was used for SBS testing and adhesive remnant index (ARI)-based analysis of failure patterns.

Results

The metal brackets showed the highest mean SBS values on the glass–ceramic material (68.61 N/mm2) and the composite resin (67.58 N/mm2) and the lowest mean SBS on one of the base-metal alloys (Colado® CC; 14.01 N/mm2). The ceramic brackets showed the highest mean SBS on the glass–ceramic material (63.36 N/mm2) and the lowest mean SBS on the palladium-based alloy (38.48 N/mm2). Significant differences between the metal and ceramic brackets were observed in terms of both SBS values and ARI scores (p < 0.05). Under both bracket types, fractures of the composite-resin and the glass–ceramic samples were observed upon debonding. Opaque restorative materials under metal brackets were found to involve undercuring of the adhesive.

Conclusions

Monobond® Plus succeeded in generating high bond strengths of both bracket types on all restorative surfaces. Given our observations of cohesive fracture (including cases of surface avulsion) of the composite-resin and the glass–ceramic samples, we recommend against using these material combinations in clinical practice.
Literature
1.
Abu Alhaija ES, Abu AlReesh IA, AlWahadni AM (2010) Factors affecting the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod 32(3):274–280CrossRefPubMed
2.
Artun J, Bergland S (1984) Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 85(4):333–340CrossRefPubMed
3.
Attia A, Lehmann F, Kern M (2011) Influence of surface conditioning and cleaning methods on resin bonding to zirconia ceramic. Dental Mater 27(3):207–213CrossRef
4.
Blakey R, Mah J (2010) Effects of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 138(1):72–78CrossRef
5.
Bourke BM, Rock WP (1999) Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 26(4):285–290CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bowen RL, Rodriguez MS (1962) Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of tooth structure and several restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 64:378–387CrossRefPubMed
7.
Buonocore MG (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34(6):849–853CrossRefPubMed
8.
Cochran D, O’Keefe KL, Turner DT, Powers JM (1997) Bond strength of orthodontic composite cement to treated porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 111(3):297–300CrossRef
9.
Daratsianos N, Musabegovic E, Reimann S, Gruner M, Jager A, Bourauel C (2013) The influence of cyclic shear fatigue on the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex: an in vitro study. Dental Mater 29(5):506–513CrossRef
10.
DIN13990-2 (2009) Zahnheilkunde - Prüfverfahren für die Scherhaftfestigkeit von Adhäsiven für kieferorthopädische Befestigungselemente - Teil 2: Gesamtverbund Befestigungselement-Adhäsiv-Zahnschmelz. Beuth Verlag, Berlin
11.
Ferreira FG, Nouer DF, Silva NP, Garbui IU, Correr-Sobrinho L, Nouer PR (2013) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clinical oral investigations
12.
Gillis I, Redlich M (1998) The effect of different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 114(4):387–392CrossRef
13.
Girish PV, Dinesh U, Bhat CS, Shetty PC (2012) Comparison of shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to porcelain surface using different surface conditioning methods: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 13(4):487–493CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Erfan M, Rakhshan V, Aghabaigi N, Tabatabaei FS (2011) An in vitro assessment of the effects of three surface treatments on repair bond strength of aged composites. Oper Dent 36(6):608–617CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jung MH, Shon WJ, Park YS, Chung SH (2013) Effects of silanation time on shear bond strength between a gold alloy surface and metal bracket. Kor J Orthod 43(3):127–133CrossRef
16.
Kern M, Thompson VP (1994) Sandblasting and silica coating of a glass-infiltrated alumina ceramic: volume loss, morphology, and changes in the surface composition. J Prosthet Dent 71(5):453–461CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lee-Knight CT, Wylie SG, Major PW, Glover KE, Grace M (1997) Mechanical and electrothermal debonding: effect on ceramic veneers and dental pulp. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 112(3):263–270CrossRef
18.
Lu R, Harcourt JK, Tyas MJ, Alexander B (1992) An investigation of the composite resin/porcelain interface. Aust Dent J 37(1):12–19CrossRefPubMed
19.
Pont HB, Ozcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y (2010) Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in vivo and ex vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 138(4):387, e381–389 (discussion 387–389)
20.
Reynolds IR (1975) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2:171–178
21.
Ribeiro AA, de Morais AV, Brunetto DP, Ruellas AC, de Araujo MT (2013) Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontics brackets on composite resin restorations with different surface treatments. Dental Press J Orthod 18(4):98–103CrossRefPubMed
22.
Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B (2012) Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 34(1):25–32CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sanohkan S, Urapepon S, Harnirattisai C, Sirisinha C, Sunintaboon P (2012) Shear bond strength between autopolymerizing acrylic resin and Co–Cr alloy using different primers. Dent Mater J 31(5):765–771CrossRefPubMed
24.
Viwattanatipa N, Jermwiwatkul W, Chintavalakorn R, Nanthavanich N (2010) The effect of different surface preparation techniques on the survival probabilities of orthodontic brackets bonded to nanofill composite resin. J Orthod 37(3):162–173CrossRefPubMed
25.
Völkel T (2011) Wissenschaftliche Dokumentation Monobond Plus. In. Wissenschaflicher Dienst Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein
26.
Wolf DM, Powers JM, O’Keefe KL (1993) Bond strength of composite to etched and sandblasted porcelain. Am J Dent 6(3):155–158PubMed
Metadata
Title
Shear bond strength of brackets on restorative materials
Comparison on various dental restorative materials using the universal primer Monobond® Plus
Authors
Thomas Ebert
Laura Elsner
Ursula Hirschfelder
Sebastian Hanke
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0011-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 2/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Virtual facial reconstruction based on accurate registration and fusion of 3D facial and MSCT scans

Mitteilungen DGKFO

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Original Article

Natural head position and lower incisor irregularity

Original Article

Compensation of skeletal Class III malocclusion by isolated extraction of mandibular teeth

Original Article

Sleep-disordered breathing in orthodontic practice

Original Article

Oral health-related quality of life after orthodontic treatment for anterior tooth alignment