Search

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the tensile bond strength of metal brackets bonding to glazed ceramic surfaces using three various surface treatments. Materials and Methods Forty two glazed ceramic disks were assigned to three groups. In the first and second groups the specimens were etched with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HFA). Subsequently in first group, ceramic primer and adhesive were applied, but in second group a bonding agent alone was used. In third group, specimens were treated with 35% phosphoric acid followed by ceramic primer and adhesive application. Brackets were bonded with light cure composites. The specimens were stored in distilled water in the room temperature for 24 hours and thermocycled 500 times between 5°C and 55°C. The universal testing machine was used to test the tensile bond strength and the adhesive remenant index scores between three groups was evaluated. The data were subjected to one-way ANOVA, Tukey and Kruskal-Wallis tests respectively. Results The tensile bond strength was 3.69±0.52 MPa forfirst group, 2.69±0.91 MPa for second group and 3.60±0.41 MPa for third group. Group II specimens showed tensile strength values significantly different from other groups (P

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength between metal brackets and non-glazed ceramic with three different surface treatment methods. Materials and Methods: Forty-two non-glazed ceramic disks were assigned into three groups. Group I and II specimens were etched with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid. Subsequently in group I, silane and adhesive were applied and in group II, bonding agent was used only. In group III, specimens were treated with 35% phosphoric acid and then silane and adhesive were applied. Brackets were bonded with light-cured composites. The specimens were stored in water in room temperature for 24 hours and then thermocycled 500 times between 5°C and 55°C. Results: The difference of tensile bond strength between groups I and III was not significant (P=0.999). However, the tensile bond strength of group II was significantly lower than groups I, and III (P