The impact of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets applied to different CAD/CAM composites

• Roberto-Maia de Almeida ^[1] ; Viviane Hass ^[2] ; Debora-Yumi Sasaki ^[3] ; Sandrine-Bittencourt Berger ^[4] ; Thais-Maria Fernandes ^[4] ; Mateus-Rodrigues Tonetto ^[5]
  1. [1] MSc Candidate, Postgraduate Program in Integrated Dental Science, School of Dentistry, University of Cuiaba-UNIC, Cuiaba, MT, Brazil
  2. [2] Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Missouri-Kansas City, School of Dentistry, Kansas City, MO, USA
  3. [3] Undergraduate Student, School of Dentistry, University of North Parana – UNOPAR, Londrina, PR, Brazil
  4. [4] Associate Professor, Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Parana – UNOPAR, Londrina, PR, Brazil
  5. [5] Associate Professor, Postgraduate Program in Integrated Dental Science, School of Dentistry, University of Cuiaba-UNIC, Cuiaba, MT, Brazil

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 13, Nº. 6 (June), 2021, págs. 608-613
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • To investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic metal brackets applied to different CAD/CAM composites treated with different surface treatments.

    Specimens of two CAD/CAM composites were obtained of Lava Ultimate (LU; n=60) and Brilliant Crios (BC; n=60) which were randomly separated into six subgroups (n=10) according to the surface treatment: control (CTL); sandblasting (SB); sandblasting and silane (SBSL); hydrofluoric acid (HF); hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFSL); and Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP). The mandibular central incisor metal brackets were bonded with a light-cure adhesive. The SBS data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance and Turkey’s test, while the adhesive remnant index (ARI) by the Kruskal–Wallis, all the significance was set at 5%.

    A higher SBS was found for BC in comparison with LU (p< 0.05). All the surface treatments increased the SBS in comparison with CTL (p< 0.0001). Treatment with HF, SBSL and HFSL (p> 0.05) showed a higher SBS, which was followed by MEP and SB (p> 0.05), all in comparison with CTL (p< 0.0001). For ARI, a significant effect was detected only for the surface treatment (p< 0.01), and not for CAD/CAM resin (p> 0.05). Significant differences were detected between CTL to HF, and HF to MEP, as well.

    The SBS is highly affected by the surface treatment and also by the CAD/CAM composite. The surface treatment improves the SBS and should be encouraged when orthodontic brackets are bonded to CAD/CAM composites.