Juntavee Niwut, Juntavee Apa, Wongnara Krittaphat, Klomklorm Pimkhwan, Khechonnan Ronnaphum
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2018 Dec 1;10(12):e1167-e1176. doi: 10.4317/jced.55330. eCollection 2018 Dec.
This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of ceramic brackets to machine-able ceramics and ceramic veneering metal.
Machined ceramic specimens (10x10x1.5 mm) were prepared from Empress® CAD (EP), and e.max® CAD (EM). Ceramic veneering metal specimens (PF) were fabricated from sintered d.Sign® porcelain (1.27 mm thickness) over d.Sign®10 metal (0.23 mm thickness). Each ceramic was divided into 3-groups and treated surface by Er-YAG laser (LE) or etching with 9.6% HF acid for 5 seconds (A5) or 15 seconds (A15). Resin adhesive (Transbond™-XT) was used for attaching ceramic brackets for each group (n=15) and cured with LED (Bluephase®) for 50 seconds. Specimens were immersed in distilled water for 24 hours before testing for shear bond at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed for the differences in bond strength with ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). De-bond surfaces were microscopically examined.
Bond strength (MPa) were 12.65±1.14 for EMA5, 14.50±2.21 for EMA15, 13.97±1.17 for EMLE, 12.40±1.95 for PFA5, 15.85±3.13 for PFA15, 14.06±2.17 for PFLE, 12.12±1.54 for EPA5, 15.65±1.57 for EPA15, 12.89±1.17 for EPLE. Significant differences in bond strength among groups were found related to surface treatment (<0.05), but not significant difference upon type of ceramics (>0.05). A15 provided higher bond strength than LE and A5 (<0.05). No damage of ceramic surface upon de-bonding was indicated except for A15 tends to exhibit ditching. LE showed more uniform treated surface for bonding and no surface destruction upon de-bond compared to others.
Bond strength was affected by surface treatment. Both LE and A15 treated surface provided higher bond strength than A5. Considering possibly inducing defect on ceramic surface, LE seems to provide better favorable surface preparation than others. Treated ceramic surface with Er-YAG prior to bracket bonding is recommended. Ceramic, ceramic bracket, Er-YAG, laser, shear bond strength, surface treatment.
本研究评估了陶瓷表面处理对陶瓷托槽与可加工陶瓷及陶瓷贴面金属之间粘结强度的影响。
从Empress® CAD（EP）和e.max® CAD（EM）制备加工陶瓷试样（10×10×1.5 mm）。陶瓷贴面金属试样（PF）由烧结的d.Sign®瓷（厚度1.27 mm）覆盖在d.Sign®10金属（厚度0.23 mm）上制成。每种陶瓷分为3组，分别用Er-YAG激光（LE）处理表面，或用9.6%氢氟酸蚀刻5秒（A5）或15秒（A15）。每组（n = 15）使用树脂粘结剂（Transbond™-XT）粘贴陶瓷托槽，并用LED（Bluephase®）固化50秒。在以1.0 mm/min的十字头速度测试剪切粘结力之前，将试样浸入蒸馏水中24小时。采用方差分析和Tukey多重比较分析粘结强度的差异（α = 0.05）。对脱粘表面进行显微镜检查。
EMA5的粘结强度（MPa）为12.65±1.14，EMA15为14.50±2.21，EMLE为13.97±1.17，PFA5为12.40±1.95，PFA15为15.85±3.13，PFLE为14.06±2.17，EPA5为12.12±1.54，EPA15为15.65±1.57，EPLE为12.89±1.17。发现各组之间的粘结强度因表面处理存在显著差异（<0.05），但陶瓷类型之间无显著差异（>0.05）。A15提供的粘结强度高于LE和A5（<0.05）。除A15倾向于出现沟槽外，脱粘时未显示陶瓷表面有损伤。与其他方法相比，LE显示出更均匀的粘结处理表面，脱粘时无表面破坏。
粘结强度受表面处理影响。LE和A15处理的表面均提供了比A5更高的粘结强度。考虑到可能在陶瓷表面引起缺陷，LE似乎比其他方法提供更好的表面处理效果。建议在粘结托槽之前用Er-YAG处理陶瓷表面。陶瓷、陶瓷托槽、Er-YAG、激光、剪切粘结强度、表面处理。
