AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightResults: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was found in SBS between the groups while significant intergroup differences were detected concerning ARI scores (p
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background: Feldspathic ceramic (FC) surface treatment methods require many steps for bracket bonding. Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP) is more convenient to use intra-orally when compared to hydrofluoric (HF) acid etching and sandblasting. Purpose: To compare MEP which is originally manufactured for increasing bond strength between organic resins and ceramic with conventional surface treatment methods in preparation of leucite-reinforced FC surfaces regarding shear bond strength (SBS) of stainless steel brackets and the mode of bond failure. Materials and Methods: Forty specimens that were fabricated from FC material and glazed were randomly assigned to four surface conditioning methods: (1) CoJet Sand; (2) MEP; (3) HF acid etching followed by silane coupling agent; (4) Diamond bur followed by silane coupling agent. The SBS was determined using universal testing machine. Bond failure sites were classified according to Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Results: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was found in SBS between the groups while significant intergroup differences were detected concerning ARI scores (p