IADR Abstract Archives
Orthodontic Application of Monobond Plus® on Ceramic Materials
Objectives: This study assessed the ability of Monobond Plus® to increase adhesion between bracket and ceramics and its potential use as an orthodontic bonding resin.
Methods: A total of 140 samples were used (n=35 per group). Group 1: IPS e.max® CAD rods (Ivoclar Vivadent) treated with Assure PLUS® (Reliance Orthodontics, USA) Group 2: IPS e.max CAD rods treated with Monobond Plus® (Ivocalr Vivadent) Group 3: Jensen XT zirconia rods (Jensen Dental) treated with Assure PLUS Group 4: zirconia rods treated with Monobond Plus. For Group 1, the surface was sandblasted, treated with silane porcelain conditioner, control resin, cement and a bracket. For Group 2, the surface was etched using IPS® Ceramic Etching Gel (5% HF) (Ivocalr Vivadent) for twenty seconds, washed, brushed with experimental resin and allowed to react for 60 seconds followed by cement and a bracket. For Group 3, the surfaces were sandblasted, control resin was applied and light cured for 10 seconds followed by cement and a bracket. Group 4 was sandblasted followed by application of experimental resin, which reacted for 60 seconds, cement and a bracket. Transbond XT® (3M Unitek, USA) was used as cement and all brackets were light cured for twenty seconds. The samples were allowed to sit for 24 hours before being tested with an Instron® Universal Testing Machine (Instron, USA).
Results: The shear bond strength of group 1 was significant greater statistically than Group 2 (p=0.006) (Table 1). When comparing groups 3 and 4 the differences were not significant (p=0.083) (Table 2).
Conclusions: Group 2 had a significantly less bond strength compared to group 1, and it requires a hydrofluoric acid etch. Thus it is not recommended for orthodontic application of brackets to porcelain. Clinically, however, group 4 is still a reasonable choice for dentists trying to bond brackets to zirconia.
Methods: A total of 140 samples were used (n=35 per group). Group 1: IPS e.max® CAD rods (Ivoclar Vivadent) treated with Assure PLUS® (Reliance Orthodontics, USA) Group 2: IPS e.max CAD rods treated with Monobond Plus® (Ivocalr Vivadent) Group 3: Jensen XT zirconia rods (Jensen Dental) treated with Assure PLUS Group 4: zirconia rods treated with Monobond Plus. For Group 1, the surface was sandblasted, treated with silane porcelain conditioner, control resin, cement and a bracket. For Group 2, the surface was etched using IPS® Ceramic Etching Gel (5% HF) (Ivocalr Vivadent) for twenty seconds, washed, brushed with experimental resin and allowed to react for 60 seconds followed by cement and a bracket. For Group 3, the surfaces were sandblasted, control resin was applied and light cured for 10 seconds followed by cement and a bracket. Group 4 was sandblasted followed by application of experimental resin, which reacted for 60 seconds, cement and a bracket. Transbond XT® (3M Unitek, USA) was used as cement and all brackets were light cured for twenty seconds. The samples were allowed to sit for 24 hours before being tested with an Instron® Universal Testing Machine (Instron, USA).
Results: The shear bond strength of group 1 was significant greater statistically than Group 2 (p=0.006) (Table 1). When comparing groups 3 and 4 the differences were not significant (p=0.083) (Table 2).
Conclusions: Group 2 had a significantly less bond strength compared to group 1, and it requires a hydrofluoric acid etch. Thus it is not recommended for orthodontic application of brackets to porcelain. Clinically, however, group 4 is still a reasonable choice for dentists trying to bond brackets to zirconia.
2632368_File000000.jpg