Journals / Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research) / 2008 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

Ortodontik seramik ve kompozit braketlerin porselen ve akrilik yüzeylere bağlanma direncinin değerlendirilmesi

Evaluation of bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and composite bracket to porcelain and acrylic resin surfaces

Pages
12–19
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Within the limitation of this study, it was found that acrylic resin surface was affected mostly by light-cure adhesive bonding both composite and ceramic brackets.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: With the increase in adult orthodontic treatment, direct bonding to restored surfaces such as porcelain and acrylic resin came out as a challenge.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Fifty six porcelain (Ceremco, U.S.A) and 56 acrylic resin disks (Biodent K+B Plus, U.S.A) were fabricated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Within the limitation of this study, it was found that acrylic resin surface was affected mostly by light-cure adhesive bonding both composite and ceramic brackets.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: With the increase in adult orthodontic treatment, direct bonding to restored surfaces such as porcelain and acrylic resin came out as a challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of orthodontic bonding of composite and ceramic brackets on porcelain and acrylic resin surfaces. Material and Methods: Fifty six porcelain (Ceremco, U.S.A) and 56 acrylic resin disks (Biodent K+B Plus, U.S.A) were fabricated. All disks were 5 mm thick and 5 mm in diameter. All of the samples were stored into a water bath filled with distilled water at 37o for one week before bonding. Composite and ceramic brackets were bonded to acrylic and ceramic surface by two different adhesives separately (light-cure and no-mix adhesives). Tensile bond strengths and surface effects were evaluated. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Duncan multiple comparison test. The surface changes were evaluated by scanning electron microscope (SEM) after debonding. Results: It was declared from the analysis of variance findings that there were significant surface and adhesive effects. The highest bond strength values were obtained with light-cure adhesive on acrylic resin surface. On the other hand, the lowest bond strength values were obtained with light-cure adhesive on porcelain surface. The scanning electron microscoperevealed that the porcelain surfaces didn’t display any cracks or fracture, however, acrylic resin samples, particularly bonded by light-cure adhesive, showed some cracks. Conclusion. Within the limitation of this study, it was found that acrylic resin surface was affected mostly by light-cure adhesive bonding both composite and ceramic brackets. However, porcelain surface affected very little by light-cure adhesive bonding both composite and ceramic brackets. The effects of no-mix adhesive in both surfaces were tolerable. In order to avoid surface cracks on acrylic resin surface and for better bond strength on porcelain surface, no-mix adhesive should be preferred for orthodontic bonding.

Özet

Amaç:. Erişkin orthodontik tedavide ki artışla beraber, porselen ve akrilik rezin gibi materyallerle restore edilmiş yüzeylere direk ortodontik bonding uygulamaları konusu gündeme gelmiştir. Bu araştırmanın amacı; komposit resin ve porselen yüzeylere, komposit ve seramik braketlerin ortodontik olarak yapıştırılmasının etkisini invitro olarak değerlendirmek ve karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 56 porselen disk (Ceremco, U.S.A) ve 56 akrilik resin disk (Biodent K+B Plus, U.S.A ) 5mm kalınlığında ve 5 mm çapında hazırlandı. Tüm örnekler bonding işleminden önce bir hafta 370C de distile su içinde saklandı. Kompozit ve seramik braketler iki farklı adesiv kullanılarak yapıştırıldı. No-mix adeziv (Rely-a-bond) ve light-cure adeziv (Light-Bond). Gerilim bağlantı direnci ve yüzey etkileri değerlendirildi. Veriler çift yönlü varyans analizi ve Duncan çoklu karşılaştırma testi ile değerlendirildi. Bağlantı testi sonrası oluşan yüzey değişimleri SEM kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Varyans analizi sonuçlarına göre yüzey ve adesiv ajanın etkisinin önemli olduğu tespit edilmiştir. En yüksek bağlantı direnci akrilik rezin yüzeyinde light-cure adeziv kullanılarak yapılan bağlantıda ve en düşük bağlantı direnci porselen yüzeyinde light-cure adeziv kullanılarak yapılan bağlantıda bulunmuşturSEM bulgularına göre porselen yüzeyini herhangi bir kırık ve çatlak gözlemlenmedi. Fakat özellikle lightcure adesiv ile yapıştırılan akrilik resin örneklerde bazı çatlaklar gözlendi. Sonuç. Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde, akrilik rezin yüzeylerin, hem kompozit hem de seramik braketin light-cure adeziv resin ile yapıştırılmasından daha fazla etkilendiği tespit edilmiştir. Ancak, porselen yüzeyinin, ligth–cure bonding kullanıldığında her iki braket şeklinde de oldukça az etkilendiği gözlenmiştir. No-mix adesivinin hem porselen hem de akrilik resinde tolere edilebilir olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Akrilik rezinlerde yüzey çatlaklarından kaçınmak ve porselen ile daha iyi bağlantı direnci sağlayabilmek için, Nomix adeziv kullanılması tercih edilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKYIL, M., TAŞPINAR, F., BAYINDIR, F. (2022). Ortodontik seramik ve kompozit braketlerin porselen ve akrilik yüzeylere bağlanma direncinin değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research), Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 12–19. https://ajindex.com/articles/528390

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Graf I, Jacobi BE. Bond strength of various fluoridereleasing orthodontic bonding systems. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61: 191-8
  2. Cochran D, O’Keefe KL, Turner DT, Powers JM. Bond strength of orthodontic composite to treated porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 111: 297-300
  3. Nebbe B, Stein E. Orthodontic brackets bonded to glazed and deglazed porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 109: 431-6
  4. Smith GA, Mc Innes-Ledoux WR, Weinberg R. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988; 94: 245-252
  5. Wood DP, Jordan RE, Way DC, Galil KA. Bonding to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1986; 89: 194-205
  6. Bertolotti RL, Lacy AM, Watanabe LG. Adhesive monomers for porcelain repair. Int J Prosthod 1989; 2: 483-9
  7. Matsumura H, Kawahara M, Tanaka T, Atsuta M. A new porcelain repair system with a silane coupler, ferric chloride, and adhesive opaque resin. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 813-8
  8. Newman GV. Bonding to porcelain. J Clin Orthod 1993; 17: 53-55
  9. Pratt RC, Burgess JO, Scwartz RS, Smith JH. Evaluation of bond strength of six porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 11-3
  10. Diaz-Arnold AM, Schneider RL, Aqilino SA. Bond strengths of intraoral porcelain repair materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 305-9
  11. Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of brackets bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain repair systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988; 94: 421-5
  12. Newman SM, Dresslier KB, Grenadier MR. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to aesthetic restorative materials using a silane. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1984; 86: 503-6
  13. Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 1999; 26: 285-90
  14. Ghassemi-Tary B. Direct bonding to porcelain: An in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1979; 76: 80-3
  15. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Torres TJ, Avera SP. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4: 17-23
  16. Koa EC, Botz KC, Johnston WM. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain veneers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988; 94: 458-68
  17. Whitlock III BO, Eick DJ, Ackerman RJ, Glaros AG, Chappell RP. Shear strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994; 106: 358-64
  18. Andreasen GF, Stieg MA. Bonding and debonding brackets to porcelain and gold. Am J Orthod Dentofa