Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets

References

• Hitmi L, Muller C, Mujajic M, et al. An 18-month clinical study of bond failures with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120(4):406–415.
   Google Scholar
• Kula K, Schreiner R, Brown J, et al. Clinical bond failure of pre-coated and operator-coated orthodontic brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2002;5(3):161–165.
   Google Scholar
• Reis A, Santos J. E D, Loguercio AD, et al. Eighteen-month bracket survival rate: conventional versus self-etch adhesive. Eur J Orthod. 2007;30(1):94–99.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97(2):121–125.
   Google Scholar
• Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, et al. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs: Comparative in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(11):ZC6–ZC68.
   Google Scholar
• Park M, Ro J, Park J, et al. Effect of a DPSS laser on the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(6):1461–1466.
   Google Scholar
• Chalipa J, Jalali YF, Gorjizadeh F, et al. Comparison of bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets bonded with conventional and high-power LED light curing units. J Dent. 2016;13(6):423–430.
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson PT, Powers JM. Evaluation of fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases. Am J Orthod. 1980;78(6):630–639.
   Google Scholar
• Odegaard J, Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;94(3):201–206.
   Google Scholar
• Leao Filho JC, Braz AK, de Araujo RE, et al. Enamel quality after debonding: evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Braz Dent J. 2015;26(4):384–389.
   Google Scholar
• Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, et al. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(4):387–387.e9.
   Google Scholar
• Siomka LV, Powers JM. In vitro bond strength of treated direct-bonding metal bases. Am J Orthod. 1985;88(2):133–136.
   Google Scholar
• Atsü SS, Gelgör IE, Sahin V. Effects of silica coating and silane surface conditioning on the bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets to enamel. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(5):857–862.
   Google Scholar
• MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, et al. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(3):276–281.
   Google Scholar
• Faltermeier A, Behr M. Effect of bracket base conditioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(1):12–12.e5.
   Google Scholar
• Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98(3):214–221.
   Google Scholar
• Theodorakopoulou LP, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, et al. Evaluation of the debonding characteristics of 2 ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(3):329–336.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg CM, Hagberg C. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with chemical or mechanical retention. Br J Orthod. 1992;19(3):183–189.
   Google Scholar
• Guan G, Takano-Yamamoto T, Miyamoto M. An approach to enhance the interface adhesion between an orthodontic plastic bracket and adhesive. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23(4):425–432.
   Google Scholar
• Ozcan M, Finnema K, Ybema A. Evaluation of failure characteristics and bond strength after ceramic and polycarbonate bracket debonding: effect of bracket base silanization. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(2):176–182.
   Google Scholar
• Lung CYK, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dental Materials. 2012;28(5):467–477.
   Google Scholar
• Matinlinna JP, Lassila LVJ, Ozcan M, et al. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(2):155–164.
   Google Scholar
• Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34(6):849–853.
   Google Scholar
• Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):765–776.
   Google Scholar
• Jeiroudi MT. Enamel fracture caused by ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;99(2):97–99.
   Google Scholar
• Wang WN, Meng CL, Tarng TH. Bond strength: a comparison between chemical coated and mechanical interlock bases of ceramic and metal brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(4):374–381.
   Google Scholar
• Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98(3):263–273.
   Google Scholar
• Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1988;22(2):82–88.
   Google Scholar
• Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104(2):170–179.
   Google Scholar
• Scott GE. Fracture toughness and surface cracks-the key to understanding ceramic brackets. Angle Orthod. 1988;58(1):5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Flores DA, Caruso JM, Scott GE, et al. The fracture strength of ceramic brackets: a comparative study. Angle Orthod. 1990;60(4):269–276.
   Google Scholar
• Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon J, et al. Enamel cracks and ceramic bracket failure during debonding in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(6):1078–1083.
   Google Scholar
• Suliman SN, Trojan TM, Tantbirojn D, et al. Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: a quantitative analysis in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(4):651–656.
   Google Scholar
• Dostalova T, Jelinkova H, Remes M, et al. The use of the er:YAG laser for bracket debonding and its effect on enamel damage. Photomed Laser Surg. 2016;34(9):394–399.
   Google Scholar
• Holberg C, Winterhalder P, Holberg N, et al. Orthodontic bracket debonding: risk of enamel fracture. Clin Oral Invest. 2014;18(1):327–334.
   Google Scholar
• Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1997;3(3):178–188.
   Google Scholar
• Kitahara-Céia FM, Mucha JN, Marques dos Santos PA. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):548–555.
   Google Scholar
• Liu J, Chung C, Chang C, et al. Bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(6):761–765.
   Google Scholar
• van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I. Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(6):666–669.
   Google Scholar
• Aboushelib MN, Matinlinna JP, Salameh Z, et al. Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials: Part I. Dental Mater. 2008;24(9):1268–1272.
   Google Scholar
• Zhuravlev LT. Concentration of hydroxyl groups on the surface of amorphous silicas. Langmuir. 1987;3(3):316–318.
   Google Scholar
• Kern M, Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability. Dental Mater. 1998;14(1):64–71.
   Google Scholar
• Matinlinna JP, Heikkinen T, Ozcan M, et al. Evaluation of resin adhesion to zirconia ceramic using some organosilanes. Dental Mater. 2006;22(9):824–831.
   Google Scholar
• Kern M, Strub JR. Bonding to alumina ceramic in restorative dentistry: clinical results over up to 5 years. J Dentistr. 1998;26(3):245–249.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka R, Fujishima A, Shibata Y, et al. Cooperation of phosphate monomer and silica modification on zirconia. J Dent Res. 2008;87(7):666–670.
   Google Scholar
• de Souza G, Hennig D, Aggarwal A, et al. The use of MDP-based materials for bonding to zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(4):895–902.
   Google Scholar
• Kitayama S, Nikaido T, Takahashi R, et al. Effect of primer treatment on bonding of resin cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 2010;26(5):426–432.
   Google Scholar
• Heikkinen TT, Matinlinna JP, Vallittu PK, et al. Long term water storage deteriorates bonding of composite resin to alumina and zirconia short communication. Open Dent J. 2013;7(1):123–125.
   Google Scholar
• Aboushelib MN, Mirmohamadi H, Matinlinna JP, et al. Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials. part II: Focusing on chemical interactions. Dent Mater. 2009;25(8):989–993.
   Google Scholar
• Falkensammer F, Jonke E, Bertl M, et al. Rebonding performance of different ceramic brackets conditioned with a new silane coupling agent. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(1):103–109.
   Google Scholar
• Perea L, Matinlinna JP, Tolvanen M, et al. Penetration depth of monomer systems into acrylic resin denture teeth used as pontics. Journal Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(5):480–487.
   Google Scholar
• Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Composite–composite repair bond strength: Effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent. 2003;31(8):521–525.
   Google Scholar
• Vallittu PK. Interpenetrating polymer networks (IPNs) in dental polymers and composites. J Adhesion Sci Technol. 2009;23(7–8):961–972.
   Google Scholar
• Pilo R, Dimitriadi M, Palaghia A, et al. Effect of tribochemical treatments and silane reactivity on resin bonding to zirconia. Dent Mater. 2018;34(2):306–316.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitriadi M, Panagiotopoulou A, Pelecanou M, et al. Stability and reactivity of γ-ΜPTMS silane in some commercial primer and adhesive formulations. Dent Mater. 2018;34(8):1089–1101.
   Google Scholar
• Kang D, Choi S, Cha J, et al. Quantitative analysis of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket base surfaces with a three-dimensional imaging system. Angle Orthodont. 2013;83(4):705–711.
   Google Scholar
• Henkin FS, Macêdo ÉO, Santos KD, Schwarzbach M, et al. In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016;21(6):67–73.
   Google Scholar
• Bishara SE, Soliman MMA, Oonsombat C, et al. The effect of variation in mesh-base design on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(3):400–404.
   Google Scholar
• Knox J, Hubsch P, Jones ML, et al. The influence of bracket base design on the strength of the bracket-cement interface. J Orthod. 2000;27(3):249–254.
   Google Scholar
• Shyagali TR, Bhayya DP, Urs CB, et al. Finite element study on modification of bracket base and its effects on bond strength. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(2):76–82.
   Google Scholar
• Wang WN, Li CH, Chou TH, et al. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(1):65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma-Sayal SK, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV, et al. The influence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(1):74–82.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson AP, Grobler SR, Harris A. Orthodontic molar brackets: the effect of three different base designs on shear bond strength. Int J Biomed Sci. 2011;7(1):27–34.
   Google Scholar
• Cal Neto JP, Calasans-Maia JA, de Almeida NV, et al. Effect of a metal primer on the adhesive interface between composite and lingual brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(6):1106–1108.
   Google Scholar