The effect of using laser for ceramic bracket bonding of porcelain surfaces

세라믹 브라켓 부착 시 레이저를 이용한 포세린 표면처리 효과

  • An, Kyung-Mi (Department of Orthodontics, Daegu University Medical Center) ;
  • Sohn, Dong-Seok (Department of Dentistry, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center)
  • 안경미 (대구가톨릭대학교병원 치과교정과) ;
  • 손동석 (대구가톨릭대학교병원 구강악안면외과)
  • Published : 2008.08.30

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of using laser for ceramic bracket bonding of porcelain surfaces and to compare it with conventional treatment of porcelain surfaces. Methods: Ninety feldspathic porcelain specimens were divided into 9 groups of 10, with each group having different surface treatments performed. Surface treatment groups were orthophosphoric acid, orthophosphoric acid with silane, hydrofluoric acid, hydrofluoric acid with silane, sandblasted, sandblasted with silane, laser etched, laser etched with silane, and glazed surface served as a control group. In the laser etched groups, the specimens were irradiated with 2-watt superpulse carbon dioxide ($CO_2$) laser for 20 seconds. Ceramic brackets were bonded with light-cure composite resin and all specimens were stored in water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Shear bond strength was determined in megapascals (MPa) by shear test at 1 mm/minute crosshead speed and the failure pattern was assessed. For statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA and tukey test were used. Results: Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the groups. The HFA + S group showed the highest mean shear bond strength ($13.92{\pm}1.94\;MPa$). This was followed by SB + S ($10.16\;{\pm}\;1.27\;MPa$), HFA ($10.09\;{\pm}\;1.07\;MPa$), L + S ($8.25\;{\pm}\;1.24\;MPa$), L ($7.86\;{\pm}\;0.96\;MPa$), OFA + S ($7.22\;{\pm}\;1.09\;MPa$), SB ($3.41\;{\pm}\;0.37\;MPa$), OFA ($2.81\;{\pm}\;0.37\;MPa$), G ($2.46\;{\pm}\;1.36\;MPa$), Bond failure patterns of HFA and silane groups, except L + S, were cohesive modes in porcelain while adhesive failure was observed in the control group and the rest of the groups. Conclusions : A 2-watt superpulse $CO_2$ laser etching of porcelain surfaces can provide a satisfactory result for porcelain surface treatment for ceramic bracket bonding. Laser irradiation may be an alternative conditioning method for the treatment of porcelain surfaces.

본 연구는 포세린 표면에 $CO_2$ 레이저를 조사하여 세라믹 브라켓을 부착 후 전단결합강도를 측정하고, 산부식처리 및 샌드블라스트 등의 일반적인 방법을 시행하여 그 결과를 비교 분석하여 레이저 표면처리의 효과를 연구하고자 시행되었다. 90개의 포세린($8\;{\times}\;8\;{\times}\;4\;mm$) 시편을 제작하여 각각 10개씩 9개군으로 나누었다. 대조군(C)으로 아무런 표면처리를 하지 않은 글레이즈 표면을 사용하였으며, 실험군은 인산 처리군(OFA), 인산과 silane 처리군(OFA + S), 샌드블라스팅 처리군(SB), 샌드블라스팅과 silane 처리군(SB + S), 레이저 처리군(L), 레이저와 silane 처리군(L + S), 불산 처리군(HFA), 불산과 silane 처리군(HFA + S)으로 분류하였다. 만능시험기를 이용하여 전단결합강도를 측정하고 그 파절양상을 비교 분석한 결과 불산과 silane을 동시에 처리한 군에서 가장 높은 값($13.92\;{\pm}\;1.92\;MPa$)을 보였으며, 측정값은 SB + S ($10.16\;{\pm}\;1.27\;MPa$), HFA (10.09\;{\pm}\;1.07\;MPa$), L + S ($8.25\;{\pm}\;1.24\;MPa$), L ($7.86\;{\pm}\;0.96\;MPa$), OFA + S ($7.22\;{\pm}\;1.09\;MPa$), SB ($3.41\;{\pm}\;0.37\;MPa$), OFA ($2.81\;{\pm}\;0.37\;MPa$), 대조군($2.46\;{\pm}\;1.36\;MPa$) 순이었다. 브라켓 부착 시 치과용 레이저를 이용한 포세린의 표면처리 결과 전단결합강도의 값은 임상적으로 받아들여질 만한 수치를 보였으며 레이저와 silane을 동시에 처리한 군과는 통계적으로 유의할 만한 차이를 보이지 않았다(p > 0.05). 이상의 연구결과는 포세린 표면에 세라믹 브라켓 부착 시 2-watt의 $CO_2$ 레이저를 사용하여 전처리를 하는 방법은 시간절약의 관점에서 임상적으로 표면 전처리의 적절한 치료 대안이 될 수 있음을 보여주었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Newman SM, Dressler KB, Grenadier MR. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to esthetic restorative materials using a silane. Am J Orthod 1984;86:503-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90356-7
  2. Smith GA, McInnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux WR, Weinberg R. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain-bond strength and refinishing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:245-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90034-0
  3. Merrill SW, Oesterle LJ, Hermesch CB. Ceramic bracket bonding: a comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:290-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70049-4
  4. Barbosa VL, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O, Keith O. Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:159-64 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70131-1
  5. Akova T, Yoldas O, Toroglu MS, Uysal H. Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:630-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.021
  6. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:617-20 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.113655
  7. Highton RM, Caputo AA, Matyas J. Effectiveness of porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:292-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90218-X
  8. Nowlin TP, Barghi N, Norling BK. Evaluation of the bonding of three porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46: 516-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90240-7
  9. Shahverdi S, Canay S, Sahin E, Bilge A. Effects of different surface treatment methods on the bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:699-705 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00299.x
  10. Canay S, Kocadereli I, Ak"ca E. The effect of enamel air abrasion on the retention of bonded metallic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:15-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70243-5
  11. Wolf DM, Powers JM, O'Keefe KL. Bond strength of composite to porcelain treated with new porcelain repair agents. Dent Mater 1992;8:158-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(92)90074-M
  12. Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, Turk T. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic. Angle Orthod 2007;77:723-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/062206-256.1
  13. Maiman TH. Stimulated optical radiation in ruby. Nature 1960;187:493-4 https://doi.org/10.1038/187493a0
  14. Strauss RA. Lasers in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:851-73
  15. Convissar RA, Goldstein EE. A combined carbon dioxide/ erbium laser for soft and hard tissue procedures. Dent Today 2001;20:66-71
  16. Ariyaratnam MT, Wilson MA, Mackie IC, Blinkhorn AS. A comparison of surface roughness and composite/enamel bond strength of human enamel following the application of the Nd:YAG laser and etching with phosphoric acid. Dent Mater 1997;13:51-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80008-5
  17. von Fraunhofer JA, Allen DJ, Orbell GM. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding. Angle Orthod 1993;63:73-6
  18. Walsh LJ, Abood D, Brockhurst PJ. Bonding of resin composite to carbon dioxide laser-modified human enamel. Dent Mater 1994;10:162-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90026-4
  19. Beyer E, Behter K, Petschke U. Schweissen mit CO2-Lasern. Laser u. Optoelektronik 1986. p. 1835-46. In: Misrendino LJ, Pick RM, editors. Lasers in dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989. p. 231-45
  20. Dobberstein H, Schwarz A, Zuhrt R, Tani Y. Laser processing of dental materials. Lasers in dentistry. Elsevier Science; 1989. p. 231-45
  21. Zach L, Cohen G. Pulp response to externally applied heat. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965;19:515-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(65)90015-0
  22. Rueggeberg FA, Lockwood P. Thermal debracketing of orthodontic resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:56-65
  23. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Stein H, Miethke RR, Nakata M. Histologic investigation of the human pulp after thermodebonding of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:410-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81187-4
  24. Ghassemi-Tary B. Direct bonding to porcelain: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod 1979;76:80-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90301-4
  25. Videen BL. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain [thesis]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 1984
  26. Phillips RW. Skinner's science of dental materials. 8th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1982
  27. Kao EC, Johnston WM. Fracture incidence on debonding of orthodontic brackets from porcelain veneer laminates. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:631-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90443-Z
  28. Zelos L, Bevis RR, Keenan KM. Evaluation of the ceramic/ceramic interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106: 10-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70016-8
  29. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666
  30. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:355-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90553-3
  31. Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam and porcelain. J Clin Orthod 1993;27:661-75
  32. Major PW, Koehler JR, Manning KE. 24-hour shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain using various adhesion promoters. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:322-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70028-5