Korean J Orthod.  2019 Nov;49(6):404-412. 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.6.404.

Bracket bonding to polymethylmethacrylate-based materials for computer-aided design/manufacture of temporary restorations: Influence of mechanical treatment and chemical treatment with universal adhesives

• Goracci C
• Özcan M
• Franchi L
• Di Bello G
• Louca C
• Vichi A

• KMID: 2464203
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.6.404

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To assess shear bond strength and failure mode (Adhesive Remnant Index, ARI) of orthodontic brackets bonded to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) blocks for computer-aided design/manufacture (CAD/CAM) fabrication of temporary restorations, following substrate chemical or mechanical treatment.
METHODS
Two types of PMMA blocks were tested: CAD-Temp® (VITA) and Telio® CAD (Ivoclar-Vivadent). The substrate was roughened with 320-grit sandpaper, simulating a fine-grit diamond bur. Two universal adhesives, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU) and Assure Plus (AP), and a conventional adhesive, Transbond XT Primer (XTP; control), were used in combination with Transbond XT Paste to bond the brackets. Six experimental groups were formed: (1) CADTemp®/SU; (2) CAD-Temp®/AP; (3) CAD-Temp®/XTP; (4) Telio® CAD/SU; (5) Telio® CAD/AP; (6) Telio® CAD/XTP. Shear bond strength and ARI were assessed. On 1 extra block for each PMMA-based material surfaces were roughened with 180-grit sandpaper, simulating a normal/medium-grit (100 mm) diamond bur, and brackets were bonded. Shear bond strengths and ARI scores were compared with those of groups 3, 6.
RESULTS
On CAD-Temp® significantly higher bracket bond strengths than on Telio® CAD were recorded. With XTP significantly lower levels of adhesion were reached than using SU or AP. Roughening with a coarser bur resulted in a significant increase in adhesion.
CONCLUSIONS
Bracket bonding to CAD/CAM PMMA can be promoted by grinding the substrate with a normal/medium-grit bur or by coating the intact surface with universal adhesives. With appropriate pretreatments, bracket adhesion to CAD/CAM PMMA temporary restorations can be enhanced to clinically satisfactory levels.

Keyword

Bracket; Bonding; Adhesive; Prosthodontics

MeSH Terms

Adhesives*
Dental Instruments
Orthodontic Brackets
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Prosthodontics
Adhesives
Polymethyl Methacrylate

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Experimental set-up for bracket shear bond strength testing.

Reference

1. Turpin DL. Need and demand for orthodontic services: the final report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:151–152.

2. 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; 138:72–78.

3. Rambhia S, Heshmati R, Dhuru V, Iacopino A. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to provisional crown materials utilizing two different adhesives. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79:784–789.

4. Dias FM, Pinzan-Vercelino CR, Tavares RR, Gurgel Jde A, Bramante FS, Fialho MN. Evaluation of an alternative technique to optimize direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to temporary crowns. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20:57–62.

5. Goymen M, Topcuoglu T, Topcuoglu S, Akin H. Effect of different temporary crown materials and surface roughening methods on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. Photomed Laser Surg. 2015; 33:55–60.

6. Al Jabbari YS, Al Taweel SM, Al Rifaiy M, Alqahtani MQ, Koutsoukis T, Zinelis S. Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84:649–655.

7. de Almeida JX, Deprá MB, Marquezan M, Retamoso LB, Tanaka O. Effects of surface treatment of provisional crowns on the shear bond strength of brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013; 18:29–34.

8. Chay SH, Wong SL, Mohamed N, Chia A, Yap AU. Effects of surface treatment and aging on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to provisional materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:577.e7–577.e11.

9. Göncü Başaran E, Ayna E, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Load-bearing capacity of handmade and computer-aided design--computer-aided manufacturing-fabricated three-unit fixed dental prostheses of particulate filler composite. Acta Odontol Scand. 2011; 69:144–150.

10. Alt V, Hannig M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M. Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:339–347.

11. Stawarczyk B, Sener B, Trottmann A, Roos M, Ozcan M, Hämmerle CH. Discoloration of manually fabricated resins and industrially fabricated CAD/CAM blocks versus glass-ceramic: effect of storage media, duration, and subsequent polishing. Dent Mater J. 2012; 31:377–383.

12. Perdigão J, Swift EJ. Universal adhesives. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015; 27:331–334.

13. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43:765–776.

14. Hellak A, Rusdea P, Schauseil M, Stein S, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Enamel shear bond strength of two orthodontic self-etching bonding systems compared to Transbond™ XT. J Orofac Orthop. 2016; 77:391–399.

15. Hellak A, Ebeling J, Schauseil M, Stein S, Roggendorf M, Korbmacher-Steiner H. Shear bond strength of three orthodontic bonding systems on enamel and restorative materials. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:6307107.

16. Gaur A, Maheshwari S, Verma SK, Tariq M. Effects of adhesion promoter on orthodontic bonding in fluorosed teeth: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Orthod Sci. 2016; 5:87–91.

17. Reichheld T, Monfette G, Perry RD, Finkelman M, Gheewalla E, Kugel G. Clinical significance of bis-GMA and HEMA orthodontic resins bonding to enamel and ceramic materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2016; 37:e5–e8.

18. Mehta AS, Evans CA, Viana G, Bedran-Russo A, Galang-Boquiren MT. Bonding of metal orthodontic attachments to sandblasted porcelain and zirconia surfaces. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:5762785.

19. Wiegand A, Stucki L, Hoffmann R, Attin T, Stawarczyk B. Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19:2007–2013.

20. Lee JH, Lee M, Kim KN, Hwang CJ. Resin bonding of metal brackets to glazed zirconia with a porcelain primer. Korean J Orthod. 2015; 45:299–307.

21. Ostby AW, Bishara SE, Denehy GE, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of self-etchant pH on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:203–208.

22. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007; 28:3757–3785.

23. Amaral M, Belli R, Cesar PF, Valandro LF, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The potential of novel primers and universal adhesives to bond to zirconia. J Dent. 2014; 42:90–98.

24. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2:171–178.

25. Finnema KJ, Ozcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU. In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:615–622.e3.

26. Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22:13–23.

27. Eliades T. Comparing bond strengths. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122:13A–15A. author reply 15A.

28. Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127:403–412.

29. Goracci C, Margvelashvili M, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:609–617.

30. Fleming PS. Limited evidence suggests no difference in orthodontic attachment failure rates with the acid-etch technique and self-etch primers. Evid Based Dent. 2014; 15:48–49.