Effects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength between ceramic systems and metal brackets

dc.contributor.authorCevik, Pinar
dc.contributor.authorKaracam, Nejla
dc.contributor.authorEraslan, Oguz
dc.contributor.authorSari, Zafer
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T19:35:21Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T19:35:21Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different kinds of ceramic surfaces after different surface conditioning methods. A total of 120 ceramic disks were divided into two main groups in terms of feldspathic or lithium disilicate. Each ceramic group was further subdivided into six subgroups depending on surface treatment (n = 10). The ceramic surfaces were conditioned by one of the following methods: Group C: control group; Group P: %37.5 orthophosphoric acid; Group HF: %9.6 hydrofluoric acid; Group L: Nd-YAG laser irradiation; Group SB: sandblasting with 50 mu m Al2O3 particles; and Group DB: grinding with a diamond bur. Surface roughness value was evaluated with a digital profilometer. Surface topographies of one specimen from each group were observed by atomic force microscopy (AFM) after surface treatments. All samples were primed with silane before the bracket bonding, including the control group. Metal brackets were bonded to the specimens with a light curing composite resin. The samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h and thermocycled 2500x at 5 and 55 degrees C for 30 s. Shear bond strengths between the ceramic surface and the bracket were measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were classified as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha =.05). Group SB had significantly rougher surface compared with the other groups in each ceramic system (p <.05), and Group SB demonstrated significantly higher shear bond strengths than other groups as well. Within the limitations of this study, surface conditioning methods, except for sandblasting and grinding, were associated with lower shear bond strengths; however, thermocycling may have had negative effects on bond strengths of specimens. Furthermore, in each ceramic system, there was a significant difference between surface-conditioning methods and surface roughness with regard to shear bond strength.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipScientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Turkish: Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu, TuBITAK) [111S268]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by [project number 111S268] from The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Turkish: Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu, TuBITAK).en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01694243.2016.1245074en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1115en_US
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243en_US
dc.identifier.issn1568-5616en_US
dc.identifier.issue10en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1105en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1245074
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/35039
dc.identifier.volume31en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000396768800006en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTDen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectAcid etchingen_US
dc.subjectmetal bracketsen_US
dc.subjectNd:YAG laseren_US
dc.subjectshear bond strengthen_US
dc.subjectsilane treatmenten_US
dc.subjectsurface conditioningen_US
dc.titleEffects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength between ceramic systems and metal bracketsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar