Direkt zum Inhalt

Jungbauer, Rebecca ; Kirschneck, Christian ; Hammer, Christian M. ; Proff, Peter ; Edelhoff, Daniel ; Stawarczyk, Bogna

Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets

Jungbauer, Rebecca , Kirschneck, Christian , Hammer, Christian M., Proff, Peter, Edelhoff, Daniel und Stawarczyk, Bogna (2021) Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets. Clinical Oral Investigations 26, S. 2827-2837.

Veröffentlichungsdatum dieses Volltextes: 01 Dez 2021 06:28
Artikel
DOI zum Zitieren dieses Dokuments: 10.5283/epub.51022


Zusammenfassung

Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC ...

Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 degrees C), 500 x thermocycling (5/55 degrees C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 degrees C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk, Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann-Whitney U, and Chi(2) test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary.



Beteiligte Einrichtungen


Details

DokumentenartArtikel
Titel eines Journals oder einer ZeitschriftClinical Oral Investigations
Verlag:SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
Ort der Veröffentlichung:HEIDELBERG
Band:26
Seitenbereich:S. 2827-2837
Datum18 November 2021
InstitutionenMedizin > Lehrstuhl für Kieferorthopädie
Identifikationsnummer
WertTyp
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5DOI
Stichwörter / KeywordsFILLING MATERIALS; RESIN CEMENT; IN-VITRO; PORCELAIN; REPAIR; MICROSTRUCTURE; COMPOSITE; ADHESIVES; WATER; ACID; Silicate ceramic; Orthodontic bonding; Shear bond strength; Ceramic bracket; Pretreatment
Dewey-Dezimal-Klassifikation600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin
StatusVeröffentlicht
BegutachtetJa, diese Version wurde begutachtet
An der Universität Regensburg entstandenZum Teil
URN der UB Regensburgurn:nbn:de:bvb:355-epub-510226
Dokumenten-ID51022

Bibliographische Daten exportieren

Nur für Besitzer und Autoren: Kontrollseite des Eintrags

nach oben