The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Impact of Surface Treatment Methods on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Indirect Composite Provisional Restorations

Sary Borzangy

Keywords : Adhesion, Indirect composite, Orthodontic brackets, Provisional crowns, Surface conditioning

Citation Information : Borzangy S. Impact of Surface Treatment Methods on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Indirect Composite Provisional Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (12):1412-1416.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2696

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: To assess the impact of different surface treatment protocols on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal orthodontic brackets (MOBs) and ceramic orthodontic brackets (CBOs) bonded to provisional crowns via the SBS test. Materials and methods: A total of 120 provisional indirect composite crowns (SR Nexco; Ivoclar Vivadent) for maxillary first premolars were fabricated and evenly allocated into two groups: MOBs and CBOs. According to the surface treatment protocol, each group was divided into three subgroups: group CO, no treatment; group HF, the surface was etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid; and group SA, the surface was sandblasted followed by silanization. After bracket bonding, the samples were subjected to 3,000 thermocycles between 5°C and 55°C. SBS was evaluated using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was identified. For statistical analysis, ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests were performed. Results: Mean bond strength values for CBOs cemented to control, HF-, and SA-treated subgroups before and after thermocycling were (9.6 ± 1.4, 6.2 ± 1.1), (17.8 ± 2.1, 13.8 ± 1.3), and (17.2 ± 1.4, 12.1 ± 1.8) MPa, respectively. For the metallic brackets, the results were (7.7 ± 2.3, 3.9 ± 1.4), (15.5 ± 1.6, 12.8 ± 1.2), and (15 ± 1.2, 11.2 ± 1.6) MPa, respectively. There was a significant difference (p = 0.000) between ceramic and metallic bracket groups. Conclusion: Conditioning of indirect composite provisional crowns either with HF or SA was significantly affecting the adhesion to both bracket types. Clinical significance: Increasing the bond strength between provisional crowns and orthodontic brackets (OBs) may improve the treatment standard provided to patients.

  1. Chay SH, Wong SL, Mohamed N, et al. Effects of surface treatment and aging on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to provisional materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(5):577.e7–611.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.024.
  2. Rambhia S, Heshmati R, Dhuru V, et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to provisional crown materials utilizing two different adhesives. Angle Orthod 2009;79(4):784–789. DOI: 10.2319/060908-298.1.
  3. Vallittu PK. The effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of a provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(2):125–130. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70204-5.
  4. Galindo D, Soltys JL, Graser GN. Long-term reinforced fixed provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(6):698–701. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70078-2.
  5. Balkenhol M, Mautner MC, Ferger P, et al. Mechanical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials: chemical-curing vs dual-curing systems. J Dent. 2008;36(1):15–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.10.001.
  6. Blakey R, Mah J. Effects of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(1):72–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.030.
  7. Dias FM, Pinzan-Vercelino CR, Tavares RR, et al. Evaluation of an alternative technique to optimize direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to temporary crowns. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20(4): 57–62. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.20.4.057-062.oar.
  8. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(2):225–228. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.121406.
  9. Burke FJ, Sands P. Use of a novel resin composite crown as a long-term provisional. Dent Update 2009;36(8):481–484. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2009.36.8.481, 486-7.
  10. Hummel SK, Marker V, Pace L, et al. Surface treatment of indirect resin composite surfaces before cementation. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(6):568–572. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70096-9.
  11. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(3):319–326.
  12. Trajtenberg CP, Powers JM. Effect of hydrofluoric acid on repair bond strength of a laboratory composite. Am J Dent 2004;17(3):173–176.
  13. Fuentes MV, Ceballos L, González-López S. Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to different treated indirect composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(3):717–724. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0752-y.
  14. Passos SP, Ozcan M, Vanderlei AD, et al. Bond strength durability of direct and indirect composite systems following surface conditioning for repair. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(5):443–447.
  15. Al Jabbari YS, Al Taweel SM, Al Rifaiy M, et al. Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations. Angle Orthod 2014;84(4):649–655. DOI: 10.2319/090313-649.1.
  16. Hori S, Minami H, Minesaki Y, et al. Effect of hydrofluoric acid etching on shear bond strength of an indirect resin composite to an adhesive cement. Dent Mater J 2008;27(4):515–522. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.515.
  17. Maryanchik I, Brendlinger EJ, Fallis DW, et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to various esthetic pontic materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(5):684–689. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.031.
  18. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, et al. A comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin cement and two orthodontic resin adhesive systems. Angle Orthod 2005;75:109–113. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0109:ACOTSB>2.0.CO;2.
  19. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon JF, et al. Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod 2007;77(2):337–341. DOI: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0337:SBSCOT]2.0.CO;2.
  20. Ozcan M, Finnema K, Ybema A. Evaluation of failure characteristics and bond strength after ceramic and polycarbonate bracket debonding: effect of bracket base silanization. Eur J Orthod 2008;30(2):176–182. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm100.
  21. Turner PJ. Successful bonding in orthodontics: 1. Dent Update 1996;23(9):366–370.
  22. Lopez JI. Retentive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod 1980;77(6):669–678. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90158-X.
  23. Al-Saleh M, El-Mowafy O. Bond strength of orthodontic brackets with new self-adhesive resin cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(4):528–533. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.027.
  24. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. British Journal of Orthodontics 1975;2(3):171–178. DOI: 10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666.
  25. Kinami H, Sugimura M, Sakuda M, et al. New type metal bracket for suppression of resin remaining in debonding. Dent Mater J 1990;9(1):25–35. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.9.25.
  26. Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Rhodes B. Visible light-activated resins-depth of cure. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106(5):634–637. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1983.0140.
  27. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72(4):355–359. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90553-3.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.