Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surface using universal adhesive compared to conventional method

• Published in: Dental research journal Vol. 17; no. 1; pp. 19 - 24
• Main Authors: Tahmasbi, Soodeh, Shiri, Amin, Badiee, Mohammadreza
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Iran Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.01.2020; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: Adhesives; Comparative analysis; Dental restorative materials; Fluorine compounds; Kruskal-Wallis test; Methods; Original; orthodontic bracket; Orthodontics; Porcelain; shear bond strength; Silane; Statistical analysis; universal adhesive; Iran; shear bond strength; porcelain; universal adhesive; Orthodontic bracket
• DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.276229
• ISSN: 1735-3327

Background: Considering the increase in demand for orthodontic treatment in adults, bracket bond to restored teeth is a clinical challenge. This study sought to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to feldspathic porcelain using universal adhesive and conventional adhesive with and without silane application. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study Fifty-six feldspathic porcelain discs were roughened by bur, and 9.6% hydrofluoric acid was used for surface preparation. Samples were divided into the following four groups (n = 14): Group 1: universal adhesive, Group 2: universal adhesive/silane, Group 3: conventional adhesive, and Group 4: conventional adhesive/silane. Mandibular central incisor brackets were bonded, and SBS was measured by Instron® machine. To assess the mode of failure, adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was determined. The data were analyzed using SPSS software and two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, and Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05 considered significant). Results: The highest SBS was noted in the universal adhesive/silane group (12.7 MP) followed by conventional adhesive/silane (11.9 MP), conventional adhesive without silane (7.6 MP), and universal adhesive without silane (4.4 MP). In the absence of silane, the conventional adhesive yielded significantly higher SBS than universal adhesive (P = 0.03). In the presence of silane, the two adhesives showed SBS values significantly higher than the values obtained when silane was not applied, while the two adhesives were not significantly different in terms of SBS in the presence of silane (P = 0.53). Based on ARI score, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 4 (P = 0.00) and Groups 2 and 4 (P = 0.023). Conclusion: Based on the current results, SBS of bracket to porcelain mainly depends on the use of silane rather than the type of adhesive. Both universal and conventional adhesives yield significantly higher SBS in the presence of silane compared to that in the absence of silane.