Effect of surface treatment methods of porcelain discs on the shear bond strength of two orthodontic adhesives: an in vitro study | ||||
| Egyptian Orthodontic Journal | ||||
| Article 5, Volume 50, December 2016, December 2016, Page 69-84 PDF (676.67 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/eos.2016.78674 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Nada O Elkady* ; Mohamed A Nadim; Ahmad A Ramadan | ||||
| Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: Ceramic is an inert material. Mechanical or chemical ceramic surface preparation is needed prior to the bonding such as Microetcher II for mechanical surface preparation while hydrofluoric acid for chemical surface preparation. Composite resin is a hydrophobic material while cyanoacrylate is a hydrophilic one. Objective: The aim of the study was to study and compare the effect of surface treatment methods of porcelain discs on shear bond strength of two orthodontic adhesives (light cure composite resin and light cure cyanoacrylate). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on ninety eight feldspathic circular glazed porcelain discs divided into two main groups Group A (N=8) which was examined by SEM to determine the effect of the surface treatment methods on the surface texture (micropores) and to compare it with the two untreated discs and Group B (N=90) which was divided into six subgroups of fifteen; these specimens were used for the shear bond strength testing, three subgroups bonded by composite resin and three subgroups bonded by cyanoacrylate. ARI were measured after debonding for the specimens under SEM. The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS program (SPSS, 2008). Cross tabulation and Chi square test were used to test the ARI. Results: Subgroup 1 (composite after sandblasting and acid etching) showed the highest shear bond strength among all subgroups with mean16.27 MPa followed by Subgroup 3 (composite after acid etching) with mean 14.96 Mpa, Subgroup 4 (cyanoacrylate after sandblasting and acid etching) with mean13.32 MPa, Subgroup 6 (cyanoacrylate after acid etching) with mean 12.47 MPa, Subgroup 2 (composite after sandblasting) with mean 7.86 MPa Subgroup 5 (cyanoacrylate after sandblasting) had the lowest shear bond strength among all subgroups with mean 6.63 MPa. Conclusions: Composite subgroups had higher shear bond strength than cyanoacrylate subgroups, but cyanoacrylate results were in the clinically acceptable range. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Shear bond strength; Scanning electron microscope; adhesive remnant index; micropores; microetcher II; hydroflouric acid; composite resin; cyanoacrylate | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 130 PDF Download: 183 |
||||
