Effects of two erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet lasers and conventional treatments as composite surface abrasives on the shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to composite resins

Background: Bonding brackets to dental surfaces restored with composites are increasing. No studies to date have assessed the efficacy of laser irradiation in roughening of composite and the resulted shear bond strength (SBS) of the bonded bracket. We assessed, for the 1 st time, the efficacy of two...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Farhad Sobouti, Sepideh Dadgar, Zahra Sanikhaatam, Nazanin Nateghian, Mahdi Gholamrezaei Saravi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2016-01-01
Series:Journal of Orthodontic Science
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jorthodsci.org/article.asp?issn=2278-0203;year=2016;volume=5;issue=1;spage=18;epage=24;aulast=Sobouti
Description
Summary:Background: Bonding brackets to dental surfaces restored with composites are increasing. No studies to date have assessed the efficacy of laser irradiation in roughening of composite and the resulted shear bond strength (SBS) of the bonded bracket. We assessed, for the 1 st time, the efficacy of two laser beams compared with conventional methods. Materials and Methods: Sixty-five discs of light-cured composite resin were stored in deionized distilled water for 7 days. They were divided into five groups of 12 plus a group of five for scanning electron microscopy (SEM): Bur-abrasion followed by phosphoric acid etching (bur-PA), hydrofluoric acid conditioning (HF), sandblasting, 3 W and 2 W erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser irradiation for 12 s. After bracket bonding, specimens were water-stored (24 h) and thermocycled (500 cycles), respectively. SBS was tested at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored under ×10 magnification. SEM was carried out as well. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, Tukey, Dunn, one-sample t-test/Wilcoxon tests, and Weibull analysis (α =0.05). Results: The SBS values (megapascal) were bur-PA (11.07 ± 1.95), HF (19.70 ± 1.91), sandblasting (7.75 ± 1.10), laser 2 W (15.38 ± 1.38), and laser 3 W (20.74 ± 1.73) (compared to SBS = 6, all P = 0.000). These differed significantly (ANOVA P = 0.000) except HF versus 3 W laser (Tukey P > 0.05). ARI scores differed significantly (Kruskal-Wallis P = 0.000), with sandblasting and 2 W lasers having scores inclined to the higher end (safest debonding). Weibull analysis implied successful clinical outcome for all groups, except for sandblasting with borderline results. Conclusion: Considering its high efficacy and the lack of adverse effects bound with other methods, the 3 W laser irradiation is recommended for clinical usage.
ISSN:2278-0203