Department of Orthodontics, Bernhard Gottlieb University Dental Clinic, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Aug;34(4):498-504. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr034. Epub 2011 Jun 6.
The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of different conditioning procedures on various ceramic microstructures and bracket adhesion. Ceramic specimens (feldspathic, leucite, leucite-free, and fluorapatite) were mechanically conditioned (n = 20 per ceramic type) with conventional hydrofluoric acid (5 per cent HF; 60/30 seconds), buffered hydrofluoric acid (9.6 per cent BHF; 60/30 seconds), or sandblasting (Al(2)O(3)/SiO(2) particles). Silane coupling agents were added for chemical conditioning before bracket bonding. Bracket adhesion was calculated with a shear test in a universal testing machine. The bracket-composite-ceramic interface was further evaluated using the adhesive remnant index (ARI). One specimen of each ceramic/conditioning combination was subjected to qualitative electron microscopy investigation. One-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference test were applied for inferential statistics. Conditioning with conventional 5 per cent HF or sandblasting resulted in significantly (P < 0.001) higher bond strengths (mean values: 34.11 and 32.86 MPa, respectively) than with 9.6 per cent BHF (mean value: 12.49 MPa). Etching time or sandblasting particles had no statistical (P > 0.001) influence on bond strength. Higher ARI scores were found in the conventional 5 per cent HF and sandblasted groups, when compared with the 9.6 per cent BHF group. Microscopic examination of the conditioned ceramic surfaces showed that leucite and leucite-free ceramics differed most with respect to their surface roughness, though without an influence on shear bond strength (SBS; P < 0.001). Bracket adhesion was mostly influenced by the conditioning procedure itself. Sandblasted ceramic surfaces showed sufficient conditioning and bracket adhesion; however, the increased bracket adhesion was associated with a risk of ceramic surface damage.
本研究旨在探讨不同的处理程序对各种陶瓷微观结构和托槽黏附的影响。陶瓷样本(长石、透锂长石、无透锂长石和氟磷灰石)分别采用常规氢氟酸(5% HF;60/30 秒)、缓冲氢氟酸(9.6% BHF;60/30 秒)或喷砂(Al2O3/SiO2 颗粒)进行机械处理(每种陶瓷类型 20 个样本)。在黏结托槽之前,添加硅烷偶联剂进行化学处理。使用万能试验机进行剪切试验来计算托槽黏附力。使用黏附残余指数(ARI)进一步评估托槽-复合-陶瓷界面。对每种陶瓷/处理组合的一个样本进行定性电子显微镜检查。采用单因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验进行推断统计。与 9.6% BHF 相比,使用常规 5% HF 或喷砂处理后,黏结强度明显(P < 0.001)更高(平均值分别为 34.11 和 32.86 MPa)。蚀刻时间或喷砂颗粒对黏结强度没有统计学影响(P > 0.001)。与 9.6% BHF 组相比,常规 5% HF 和喷砂组的 ARI 评分更高。经处理的陶瓷表面的微观检查显示,与无透锂长石陶瓷相比,透锂长石陶瓷的表面粗糙度差异最大,但对剪切黏结强度无影响(P < 0.001)。托槽黏附力主要受处理程序本身的影响。喷砂处理的陶瓷表面具有足够的处理效果和托槽黏附力;然而,增加的托槽黏附力与陶瓷表面损伤的风险相关。