The Experts below are selected from a list of 1059 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alberto Albaladejo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of femtosecond laser and other surface treatments on the bond strength of metallic and Ceramic orthodontic Brackets to zirconia
PLOS ONE, 2017Co-Authors: Veronica Garciasanz, Vanessa Paredesgallardo, Carlos Bellotarcis, Omel Mendozayero, Carlos Donatebuendia, Javier Montero, Alberto AlbaladejoAbstract:Femtosecond laser has been proposed as a method for conditioning zirconia surfaces to boost bond strength. However, metallic or Ceramic Bracket bonding to femtosecond laser-treated zirconia surfaces has not been tested. This study compared the effects of four conditioning techniques, including femtosecond laser irradiation, on shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic and Ceramic Brackets to zirconia.Three hundred zirconia plates were divided into five groups: 1) control (C); 2) sandblasting (APA); 3) silica coating and silane (SC); 4) femtosecond laser (FS); 5) sandblasting followed by femtosecond laser (APA+SC). A thermal imaging camera measured temperature changes in the zirconia during irradiation. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (metallic vs Ceramic Brackets). SBS was evaluated using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was registered and surfaces were observed under SEM. Surface treatment and Bracket type significantly affected the Bracket-zirconia bond strength. SBS was significantly higher (p APA > FS > SC > control) than metallic Brackets (APA+FS > FS > SC > APA > control). For metallic Brackets, groups SC (5.99 ± 1.86 MPa), FS (6.72 ± 2.30 MPa) and APA+FS (7.22 ± 2.73 MPa) reported significantly higher bond strengths than other groups (p < 0.05). For Ceramic Brackets, the highest bond strength values were obtained in groups APA (25.01 ± 4.45 MPa), FS (23.18 ± 6.51 MPa) and APA+FS (29.22 ± 8.20 MPa).Femtosecond laser enhances bond strength of Ceramic and metallic Brackets to zirconia. Ceramic Brackets provide significantly stronger adhesion than metallic Brackets regardless of the surface treatment method.
Dan Nathanson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effect of Ceramic surface treatment and adhesive systems on bond strength of metallic Brackets
International Journal of Dentistry, 2020Co-Authors: Patrapan Juntavee, Hattanas Kumchai, Niwut Juntavee, Dan NathansonAbstract:Objective. This study evaluated the effect of Ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of metal Brackets to machinable Ceramics and veneering porcelain using different adhesive resins. Materials and methods. Machined Ceramic specimens (10 × 10 × 2 mm) were prepared from Vitablocs mark II (Vita) and IPS e.max® CAD (Ivoclar). Layered porcelain fused to metal (IPS d.Sign®, Ivoclar) was used to fabricate PFM specimens (n = 60/group). Half of specimens were etched (9.6% HF, 15 sec), and the rest were nonetched. Three resin bonding systems were used for attaching metal Brackets (Victory series™ APC II, 3M) to each group (n = 10): Transbond™ XT (3M), Light Bond™ (Reliance), or Blugloo™ (Ormco), all cured with LED curing unit (Bluephase G1600, Vivadent) for 50 s each. Specimens were immersed in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours prior to shear bond testing (Instron) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Debond surface of Ceramic and Bracket base was examined for failure mode (FM), Ceramic Damage Index (CDI), and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparisons were used to analyze the differences in bond strength. The chi-squared test was used to determine significance effect of FM, CDI, and ARI. Results. Significant differences in shear bond strength among group were found ( ) related to Ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement. Conclusion. Bond strength of Bracket to Ceramic is affected by type of Ceramic, resin cement, and Ceramic surface conditioning. Etching Ceramic surface enhanced Ceramic-Bracket bond strength. However, bond strengths in nontreated Ceramic surface groups were still higher than bond strength required for bonding in orthodontic treatment.
E H Davies - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the influence of Bracket material ligation force and wear on frictional resistance of orthodontic Brackets
Journal of Orthodontics, 1993Co-Authors: O Keith, S P Jones, E H DaviesAbstract:AbstractPlanar static frictional phenomena were investigated for two types of Ceramic and one type of stainless steel orthodontic Bracket against rectangular stainless steel archwire. The Brackets studied were ‘Starfire’ (single crystal aluminium oxide), ‘Allure III’ (polycrystalline aluminium oxide), and ‘Dentaurum’ (stainless steel). The investigative parameters were: Bracket material, force of ligation and whether the Brackets were new or ‘worn’.Without exception, both types of Ceramic Bracket produced greater frictional resistance than the stainless steel Brackets throughout testing. At a ligation force of 500 g, the Starfire Bracket gave the greatest frictional resistance. At ligation forces of 200 and 50 g, the greatest frictional resistance was seen with Allure III. After a period of simulated wear, frictional resistance of Starfire tended to increase at the greatest ligation load while that of both Ceramics decreased slightly at the two lower ligation loads. The Ceramic Brackets caused abrasive we...
Shin Hye Chung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effect of simplified bonding on shear bond strength between Ceramic Brackets and dental zirconia
Materials, 2019Co-Authors: Bumsoon Lim, Hyunseung Lee, Shin Hye ChungAbstract:The aim of this study was to evaluate the long term stability of shear bond strength (SBS) when 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) containing universal adhesive was used in the Ceramic Bracket bonding on dental zirconia. Twenty human maxillary incisors were collected. The Ceramic Bracket was bonded on the buccal enamel surface after the acid-etching and orthodontic primer application (Group CON). Sixty zirconia specimens were sintered, sandblasted and divided into three experimental groups; group CP—Ceramic primer followed by an orthodontic primer; group U—universal adhesive; group CU—Ceramic primer followed by a universal adhesive. For each specimen, the Bracket was bonded onto the treated surface with composite resin (Transbond XT, 3M ESPE). The SBS tested before (CON0, CP0, U0, CU0) and after the artificial aging (CON1, CP1, U1, CU1). The data were statistically analyzed with the Kruskal–Wallis test at a significance level of 0.05. The mean SBS of CON0, CP0, U0 and CU0 were within the clinically acceptable range without significant differences. After the aging process, SBS decreased in all groups. Among the aged groups, CP1 showed the highest SBS. Based on the results, when bonding Ceramic Brackets to a dental zirconia surface, we can conclude that Ceramic primer used with an orthodontic primer, rather than using a universal adhesive, is recommended.
Veronica Garciasanz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of femtosecond laser and other surface treatments on the bond strength of metallic and Ceramic orthodontic Brackets to zirconia
PLOS ONE, 2017Co-Authors: Veronica Garciasanz, Vanessa Paredesgallardo, Carlos Bellotarcis, Omel Mendozayero, Carlos Donatebuendia, Javier Montero, Alberto AlbaladejoAbstract:Femtosecond laser has been proposed as a method for conditioning zirconia surfaces to boost bond strength. However, metallic or Ceramic Bracket bonding to femtosecond laser-treated zirconia surfaces has not been tested. This study compared the effects of four conditioning techniques, including femtosecond laser irradiation, on shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic and Ceramic Brackets to zirconia.Three hundred zirconia plates were divided into five groups: 1) control (C); 2) sandblasting (APA); 3) silica coating and silane (SC); 4) femtosecond laser (FS); 5) sandblasting followed by femtosecond laser (APA+SC). A thermal imaging camera measured temperature changes in the zirconia during irradiation. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (metallic vs Ceramic Brackets). SBS was evaluated using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was registered and surfaces were observed under SEM. Surface treatment and Bracket type significantly affected the Bracket-zirconia bond strength. SBS was significantly higher (p APA > FS > SC > control) than metallic Brackets (APA+FS > FS > SC > APA > control). For metallic Brackets, groups SC (5.99 ± 1.86 MPa), FS (6.72 ± 2.30 MPa) and APA+FS (7.22 ± 2.73 MPa) reported significantly higher bond strengths than other groups (p < 0.05). For Ceramic Brackets, the highest bond strength values were obtained in groups APA (25.01 ± 4.45 MPa), FS (23.18 ± 6.51 MPa) and APA+FS (29.22 ± 8.20 MPa).Femtosecond laser enhances bond strength of Ceramic and metallic Brackets to zirconia. Ceramic Brackets provide significantly stronger adhesion than metallic Brackets regardless of the surface treatment method.