부산대학교 도서관

The aims of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to two different all-ceramic crowns, IPS Empress 2 and In-Ceram Alumina, to compare the SBS between hydrofluoric acid (HFA), phosphoric acid etched, and sandblasted, non-etched all-ceramic surfaces. Ninety-six all-ceramic crowns were fabricated resembling a maxillary left first premolar. The crowns were divided into eight groups: (1) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; (2) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched In-Ceram crowns; (3) ceramic brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; (4) ceramic brackets bonded to sandblasted 9.6 per cent HFA-etched In-Ceram crowns; (5) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 37 per cent phosphoric acid-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; (6) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted 37 per cent phosphoric acid-etched In-Ceram crowns; (7) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted, non-etched IPS Empress 2 crowns; and (8) metal brackets bonded to sandblasted, non-etched In-Ceram crowns. Metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets were bonded using a conventional light polymerizing adhesive resin. An Instron universal testing machine was used to determine the SBS at a crosshead speed of 0.1 mm/minute. Comparison between groups was performed using a univariate general linear model and chi-squared tests.The highest mean SBS was found in group 3 (120.15 ± 45.05 N) and the lowest in group 8 (57.86 ± 26.20 N). Of all the variables studied, surface treatment was the only factor that significantly affected SBS (P < 0.001). Acid etch application to sandblasted surfaces significantly increased the SBS in groups 1, 2, 5, and 6. The SBS of metal brackets debonded from groups 1, 3, and 5 were not significantly different from those of groups 2, 4, and 6. All debonded metal brackets revealed a similar pattern of bond failure at the adhesive–restorative interface. However, ceramic brackets had a significantly different adhesive failure pattern with dominant failure at the adhesive–bracket interface. Ceramic fractures after bracket removal were found more often in groups 1–4. No significant difference in ceramic fracture was observed between the IPS Empress 2 and In-Ceram groups.