Korean J Orthod.  2009 Aug;39(4):225-233. 10.4041/kjod.2009.39.4.225.

Effect of thermocycling on shear bond strength and mode of failure of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to different porcelain restorations

• Kang SW
• Son WS
• Park SB
• Kim SS

• KMID: 1762578
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2009.39.4.225

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of thermocycling and type of porcelain restoration on shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure of monocrystalline ceramic brackets. METHODS: A total of 60 porcelain discs were made and divided into three equal groups as follows: Ceramco 3, IPS Empress II, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR. ceramic brackets were bonded to the prepared porcelain surfaces in the same manner. Each group was divided randomly into two subgroups: thermocycled group and non-thermocycled group (control). All samples were tested in shear mode on an universal testing machine. RESULTS: SBS of the non-thermocycled group was clinically acceptable (Ceramco 3: 7.06 +/- 1.76 MPa, IPS Empress II: 7.55 +/- 2.38 MPa, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR: 7.19 +/- 1.38 MPa). But, SBS of the thermocycled group was significantly reduced (Ceramco 3: 4.88 +/- 1.00 MPa, IPS Empress II: 5.46 +/- 1.35 MPa, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR: 4.84 +/- 1.01 MPa, p < 0.05). There was no difference between the shear bond strength by type of porcelain restoration. All bonding failure occurred between bracket base and adhesive, except for 2 samples. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the type of porcelain restoration did not affect SBS, but thermocycling weakened SBS. Therefore, the effect of thermocycling should be considered when using ceramic brackets in practice.

Keyword

Thermocycling; Ceramic bracket; Shear bond strength

MeSH Terms

Adhesives
Ceramics
Collodion
Dental Porcelain
Orthodontic Brackets
Adhesives
Ceramics
Collodion
Dental Porcelain

Figure

• 

  Fig 1 SEM photomicrograph of ceramic bracket base before bonding (magnification × 30). Silica particles can be seen.

• 

  Fig 2 Application of shear debonding force.

• 

  Fig 3 Shear bonding strength was significantly reduced in the thermocycled group.

• 

  Fig 4 SEM photograph of failure site (magnification × 30). A, Silica particles were removed from the bracket base; B, the rest of the adhesive can be seen attached to the porcelain surface.

• 

  Fig 5 SEM photograph of porcelain disc (magnification × 1,000). A, D, G, Glazed porcelain surface; B, E, H, airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm Al2O3; C, F, I, surface etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 2 min (Ceramco 3: A, B, C, Empress II: D, E, F, Zi-ceram/Vintage ZR: G, H, I).

Reference

1. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001. 119:617–620.

2. Kim SG, Sung JH. Effect of surface treatment of porcelain on tensile bond strength. Korean J Orthod. 1996. 26:301–308.

3. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig WL, editors. Bonding in orthodontics. Orthodontics: current principles & techniques. 2005. St Louis: Mosby;579–659.

4. Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 97:121–125.

5. Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 98:214–221.

6. Wood DP, Jordan RE, Way DC, Galil KA. Bonding to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod. 1986. 89:194–205.

7. Lacy AM, LaLuz J, Watanabe LG, Dellinges M. Effect of porcelain surface treatment on the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 60:288–291.

8. Smith GA, McInnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux WR, Weinberg R. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain - bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 94:245–252.

9. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam, and porcelain. J Clin Orthod. 1993. 27:661–675.

10. Barbosa VL, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O, Keith O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 107:159–164.

11. Newman SM, Dressler KB, Grenadier MR. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to esthetic restorative materials using a silane. Am J Orthod. 1984. 86:503–506.

12. Whitlock BO 3rd, Eick JD, Ackerman RJ Jr, Glaros AG, Chappell RP. Shear strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:358–364.

13. Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of the ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:10–21.

14. Hayakawa T, Horie K, Aida M, Kanaya H, Kobayashi T, Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Mater. 1992. 8:238–240.

15. Lee JN, Lee CW. Shear bond strength and debonding failure mode of ceramic brackets according to the surface treatment of porcelain. Korean J Orthod. 1998. 28:803–812.

16. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Böhme A. Shear bond strengths attained in vitro with light-cured glass ionomers vs composite adhesives in bonding ceramic brackets to metal or porcelain. J Adhes Dent. 1999. 3:243–253.

17. Türkkahraman H, Küçükemen HC. Porcelain surface-conditioning techniques and the shear bond strength ofceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2006. 28:440–443.

18. Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 109:402–430.

19. International Organization for Standardization. ISO TR 11405 dental materials - guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

20. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984. 85:333–340.

21. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, Laffoon JF. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 116:616–620.

22. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975. 2:171–178.

23. Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 94:421–425.

24. Sparrius O, Grossman ES. Marginal leakage of composite resin restorations in combination with dental and enamel bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 61:678–684.

25. Shin WC, Kim JS, Kim JG. The effects of mechanical and thermal fatigue on the shear bond strength of orthodontic adhesives. Korean J Orthod. 1996. 26:175–186.

26. Tanaka T, Kamada T, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. A comparison of water temperatures for thermocycling of metal-bonded resin specimens. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:345–349.

27. Son JH, Hwang HS. Change of fracture mode of orthodontic resin bracket wings under water immersion and thermocycling. Korean J Orthod. 2000. 30:475–481.

28. Southan DE, Jorgensen KD. An explanation for the occurrence of internal faults in porcelain jacket crowns. Aust Dent J. 1973. 18:152–156.

29. Grey NJA, Piddock V, Wilson MA. In vitro comparison of conventional crowns and a new all-ceramic system. J Dent. 1993. 21:47–51.

30. Jeong HC. Fracture strength of zirconia monolithic crowns. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2006. 44:157–164.

31. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Torres TJ, Avera SP. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthod. 1991. 4:17–23.

32. Kao EC, Johnston WM. Fracture incidence on debonding of orthodontic brackets from porcelain veneer laminates. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 66:631–637.

33. Kern M, Thompson VP. Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 73:240–249.

34. Kim JS, Hwang HS, Jeong CM, Jeon YC. A study on the bond strength of resin cements to Empress 2 ceramic. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2001. 39:184–196.

35. Abu Alhaija Elham S J, Al-Wahadni Ahed M S. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod. 2007. 29:386–389.

36. Soderquist S, Drummond J, Evans C. Bond strength evaluation of ceramic and stainless steel bracket bases subjected to cyclic tensile loading. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. 129:175.e7–175.e12.

37. Akova T, Ozkomur A, Aytutuldu N, Toroglu MS. The effect of food simulants on porcelain-composite bonding. Dent Mater. 2007. 23:1369–1372.