Int J Stomatol

Inter J Stomatol ›› 2017, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (4): 430-432.doi: 10.7518/gjkq.2017.04.012

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Influence of different adhesive materials on the shear bond strength of metal brackets to porcelain surface

Ding Hong1, Chen Jifen2, Wu Jianyong3   

  1. 1. Dept. of General Dentistry, Dalian Stomatological Hospital, Dalian 116021, China;
    2. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dalian Stomatological Hospital, Dalian 116021, China;
    3. Dept. of Orthodontics, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330019, China
  • Received:2016-08-12 Revised:2017-04-01 Online:2017-07-01 Published:2017-07-01

RichHTML

4

PDF (PC)

330

Abstract: Objective This study aims to investigate the influence of different adhesive materials on the shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Methods A total of 40 porcelain specimens were deglazed, etched, rinsed, dried, and treated with silane coupling agent. Then, the 40 porcelain specimens were divided into 4 groups. A total of 40 metal brackets were bonded to each group with the following 4 adhesive materials: light-cured composite resin(group A), one-component chemically cured composite resin(group B), resin-modified light-cured glass ionomer cements(group C), and two-component chemically cured resin adhesive(group D). All specimens were placed with surrounding air and then stored in an artificial saliva bath for 24 h. Shear bond strength was measured by an Instron universal testing machine. Statistical analyses were performed by ANOVA. Results The shear bond strength of group A was the highest among those of the others(P<0.05). Meanwhile, the shear bond strength of group C was lower than that of group B(P<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between groups B and D and between groups C and D(P>0.05). Conclusion Light-cured composite resin can acquire the highest shear bond strength among those of the porcelain materials tested. Resin-modified light-cured glass ionomer cements were found unsuitable for use as adhesive to bond metal brackets onto porcelain surfaces.

Key words: shear bond strength, adhesive material, porcelain surface bonding

CLC Number: 

  • R783.1

TrendMD: 
[1] Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond stren-gth of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to por-celain surfaces[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2001, 119(6):617-620.
[2] 陈丕修, 王少安, 王聪, 等. 正畸粘接剂与瓷面粘接剪切强度的实验研究[J]. 口腔正畸学, 2007, 14(1): 15-17.
Chen PX, Wang SA, Wang C, et al. Influence of different adhesive systems on the shearing strength of brackets to porcelain surfaces[J]. J Orthod, 2007, 14(1):15-17.
[3] Wang WN, Meng CL. A study of bond strength between light-and self-cured orthodontic resin[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1992, 101(4):350- 354.
[4] Larmour CJ, Bateman G, Stirrups DR. An inves-tigation into the bonding of orthodontic attachments to porcelain[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2006, 28(1):74-77.
[5] Yassaei S, Davari A, Goldani Moghadam M, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of RMGI and composite resin for orthodontic bracket bonding[J]. J Dent(Tehran), 2014, 11(3):282-289.
[6] Zachrisson BU. Orthodontic bonding to artificial tooth surfaces: clinical versus laboratory findings[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000, 117(5):592- 594.
[1] Lin Yihua1, Song Xiaomeng2, Zhang Wei3. Study of bonding property among 3 kinds of resin-reinforced glass ionomer and zirconia ceramics [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2013, 40(3): 305-308.
[2] Zhong Qun, Shen Qingyi, Wu Xueying, Li Guoqiang.. Shear bond strengths of different types of adhesive resin agents to glass infiltrated alumina oxide ceramic [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2012, 39(1): 16-19.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(06): .
[2] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[3] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[4] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[5] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(05): .
[6] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 1999, 26(04): .
[7] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 2005, 32(06): 458 -460 .
[8] . [J]. Foreign Med Sci: Stomatol, 2005, 32(06): 452 -454 .
[9] . [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2008, 35(S1): .
[10] . [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2008, 35(S1): .