10.

5005/jp-journals-10021-1148
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Jayakumar Ganesan et al

Influence of Various Surface Conditioning

Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to
Porcelain Surface
1
Jayakumar Ganesan, 2Sudipto Pal, 3MK Anand, 4M Rajasekaran, 5Ashwin M George, 6NR Krishnaswamy

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the effects of different surface conditioning methods on shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets bonded to
porcelain surfaces and the influence of silane coupling agent in altering the bond strength.
Materials and methods: A total of 80 feldspathic porcelain specimens were used. They were divided into eight different groups based on
different surface conditioning methods and combinations: Sandblasting (SAB), hydrofluoric acid (HFA), diamond bur (DB) and air abrasion (AA).
Silane coupling agent was used in five groups. Metal brackets were bonded and subjected to SBS testing. The efficiencies between the five
individual methods used were analyzed. ARI scoring was done after debonding.
Results: The SBS range was between 3.19 and 14.38 (MPa) with a mean of 8.89 ± 3.25 (MPa). The difference between mean SBS between
different groups was significant (p < 0.001). As compared to DB-based group (10.46 ± 0.69 MPa) the non-DB based group were lower (8.66 ±
3.40 MPa) but the difference was not significant (p > 0.001). When compared to AA group (9.03 ± 0.59 MPa) the non-AA group were lower (8.87
± 3.46 MPa) but again the difference was not significant (p > 0.001). ARI score 0 was observed in 47 instances (58.8%), score 1 was observed
in 25 instances (31.2%).
Conclusion: The results indicated that surface conditioning alone without silanation produced significantly low SBS. Air abrasion followed by
silanation produced favorable bond strength and might have the potential to replace alternative methods.
Keywords: Porcelain, Shear bond strength, Surface conditioning, Silane and air abrasion.

How to cite this article: Ganesan J, Pal S, Anand MK, Rajasekaran M, George AM, Krishnaswamy NR. Influence of Various Surface Conditioning
Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Porcelain Surface. J Ind Orthod Soc 2013;47(3):154-158.

INTRODUCTION Moreover, the introduction of various types of ceramics, such

With an increased number of adults seeking orthodontic
treatment, clinicians often have to bond orthodontic brackets
to teeth that have different types of restoration like amalgam,
gold, composite and porcelain. Among the various restorative
materials, porcelain restorations has manifold advantages from
an esthetic and biocompatible perspective. However, ceramic
materials demonstrate a great deal of diversity in composition
to suit various clinical situations.1
There has always been an ongoing debate on the various
modalities of orthodontic bonding to porcelain surfaces.
1,3,4
Associate Professor, 2Assistant Professor, 5,6Professor and Head
1,3,5,6
Department of Orthodontics, Ragas Dental College and Hospital
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2
Department of Dentistry, MGM Medical College, Kishangang, Bihar
India
4
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ragas Dental College and
Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Corresponding Author: Jayakumar Ganesan, Associate Professor
Department of Orthodontics, Ragas Dental College and Hospital
2/102, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai-600119, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: drgjk1976@gmail.com
Received on: 9/10/12
Accepted after Revision: 5/12/12
as glass ceramic and lithium disilicate have added ambiguity
for a standard procedure for orthodontic bonding to it. The
purpose of mechanical alteration of the porcelain surface is
to remove the glaze and roughen the surface to provide
sufficient mechanical retention for the adhesives and retention
of orthodontic bracket. This alteration of the porcelain surface
has been achieved by hydrofluoric acid (HFA), sandblasting
(SAB), diamond bur (DB), air abrasion (AA), sandpaper disks,
etc. Although the changes introduced by this approach have
sufficiently increased the bond strength for orthodontic
purposes, they can also cause damage to the porcelain glaze
which require finishing after completion of orthodontic
treatment. The efficiency of various methods to improve
bracket bonding on ceramic has been well investigated.2,3 To
improve bond strength of composite resin to porcelain, a
combination of mechanical and chemical conditioning
methods are recommended.4,5 Previous investigations have
also shown that chemical conditioning such as silanation
increases the adhesion of the composite resin to the ceramic.6
Air polishing systems have been used in dentistry for removal
of stains, pit and fissure preparation and cleaning around
orthodontic fixtures. Very few studies have been done to
establish its use in orthodontic surface conditioning. The
efficiency of this system as a surface conditioning agent in

154

Influence of Various Surface Conditioning Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Porcelain Surface
providing optimal bond strength to retain brackets on porcelain
crowns has not been evaluated elaborately. It is conceivable
that if this method is efficient, the intraoral use of hazardous
chemical agents or other mechanical roughening methods can
be avoided.7
The objectives of this study were to determine the effects
of different surface conditioning methods on shear bond
strength (SBS) of metal brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces
and the influence of silane coupling agent in altering the bond
strength. We hypothesize that DB and/or AA system are
clinically a better option to other surface conditioning methods
in terms of SBS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Specimen Preparation
Five individual methods based on surface conditioning were
classified into: (a) Silane based, (b) sand blasted (SAB) based,
(c) hydrofluoric acid based, (d) diamond bur based
(e) air abrasion (AA) based and dichotomized as Yes/No.
The samples were divided into the following eight groups
based on combination which were routinely used clinically:
SAB, sandblasting and silane (SSi), SAB and HFA and silane
(SHS), SAB and HFA (SH), HFA, HFA and silane (HSi), DB
and silane (DSi) and AA and silane (ASi).
Convenient sampling of 10 in each group was done. A total
of 80 samples, 3 mm thick and 10 × 10 mm square form were
fabricated from the base alloy Wiron 88 (Bego, Germany)
consisting of 64% Ni, 24% Cr and 10% Mo. Feldspathic
porcelain (IPS design, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)
at a thickness of 2 mm was fired onto the metal disks.
Methodology
SBS was performed vertically from a uniform distance of
20 mm at a pressure of 2.5 bar for 10 seconds with an intraoral
sandblasting device using aluminum oxide with size of 50
microns.8
The ceramic surfaces were etched with 5% HFA for 120
seconds in a ventilated laboratory. The etchant was washed
with oil-free water. HFA with low concentration was chosen
as it had reduced health risks.8
The cylindrical diamond burs, with their shafts parallel to
the surface of the sample were rotated at constant speed of
50,000 rpm with a force of about 1N.3
ProphyJet is an air polishing prophylaxis system which
uses sodium bicarbonate powder, air and water as a slurry to
remove soft debris, stain and simultaneously polishing tooth
surface. Sodium bicarbonate with a size of 50 µm was blasted
vertically on the sample with a distance of approximately
10 mm at a pressure of 2.5 bar.7
Monobond-S, silane coupling agent (Ivoclar, Vivadent AG,
Bendererstrasse 2, FL-9494 Schann Principality of
The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, July-September 2013;47(3):154-158
JIOS
Liechtenstein) which contains 1% 3-methacryloxypropyl-
trimethoxysilane, 50 to 52% ethanol, water, saline and acetic
acid was used.8
Profilometry
All the porcelain samples were examined under a 2D non-
contact profilometer after surface conditioning to check for
any gross changes.9 This procedure was carried out to eliminate
any sample with major porcelain fracture.
Bonding
A total of 80 mandibular first premolar metal brackets were
divided into eight groups with 10 samples each (3M—Unitek
Corporation, USA) and were bonded to each conditioned
porcelain sample using light cure composite resin (3M
Transbond XT, USA) according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.
In this study, brackets for the mandibular premolar were
used due to their concave bases that ensure optimal adaptation
to the prepared convex ceramic surface. The bracket base
retention onto the tooth surface relied on mechanical
interlocking principle. The porcelain surface was cleaned and
dried with oil-free compressed air, after they were
conditioned. The composite was applied to the bracket base
and placed on the porcelain sample with a force of 5N. Excess
composite was removed and all samples were cured with a
conventional Light Cure Unit (3M Unitek, USA) for 20
seconds.
Thermocycling (TC)
To simulate the oral condition all the samples were stored in
0.9% NaCl solution for 24 hours. 10 All samples were
thermocycled 5,000 times between 5ºC and 55ºC with a
dwelling time of 30 seconds as recommended by IOS
(International Organization for Standardization).11
Shear mode Testing
The porcelain samples were mounted on a jig and the brackets
were vertically oriented. Specimens were then subjected to
shear forces by attaching a steel wire loop under the occlusal
tie wings of the bracket in a universal testing device (LR 100K,
Lloyd Instruments, England) with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/
minute at a scale load of 100 N until bond failure occurred12
(Fig. 1). The force required to shear the bracket was recorded
and the SBS was calculated in MegaPascals (MPa).13
ARI Scoring
Following bond failure the crowns were examined under light
stereomicroscopy at ×20 magnification to establish the
amount of composite resin left behind according to the
adhesive remnant index (ARI).14
155
Jayakumar Ganesan et al

Table 1: Different groups with their mean shear bond strength

Groups Mean shear bond strength (MPa)

SAB 4.56 ± 0.85

SSi 12.57 ± 0.84
SHS 13.26 ± 0.72
SH 7.31 ± 0.83
HFA 4.33 ± 0.72
HSi 9.21 ± 0.76
DSi 10.62 ± 0.59
ASi 9.04 ± 0.59

SAB—sandblast; SSi—sandblast + silane; SHS—sandblast +

hydofluoric acid + silane; SH—sandblast + hydrofluoric acid; HFA—
hydrofluoric acid; Hsi—hydrofluoric acid + silane, DSi—diamond bur +
silane; ASi—air abrasion + silane; MPa—megapascal

Fig. 1: SBS testing on loaded sample
Statistical Analysis
All data were entered and analyzed using SPSS Version 17
(IBM, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics are presented for groups
as well as ARI scores. The groups were cross-tabulated for
each ARI score and the difference between them was assessed
using chi-square test. Comparison of mean between silane,
SAB, HFA, DB, AA based method were done using independent
t-test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
Five different modes of surface conditioning were performed
and the descriptive results were summarized in Table 1. The
SBS range was calculated from the 80 samples and it was 3.61
to 13.98 (MPa) with mean 8.8934 ± 3.25 (MPa). The
difference between mean SBS between different groups was
significant. Mean and standard deviation of SBS with each ARI
score is summarized in Table 2.
ARI score 0 was observed in 47 instances (58.8%), score
1 was observed in 25 instances (31.2%), score 2 was observed
in 7 instances (8.8%) and score 3 was observed in 1 instance
(1.2%). Graph 1 shows the distribution of ARI score in each
study group.
As compared to silane-based technique (10.99 ± 1.94
MPa) the SBS in nonsilane-based technique was lower (5.41
± 1.51 MPa) and the difference was significant (p < 0.001).
As compared to the SAB-based group (9.49 ± 3.81 MPa) the
non-SAB group was lower (8.28 ± 2.46 MPa) and the
difference was not significant (p > 0.001). As compared to
HFA-based group (6.82 ± 2.65 MPa) the non-HFA-based group

Graph 1: The distribution of ARI score in each study group

Table 2: ARI scoring with minimum and maximum values

ARI score Mean and std. deviation of bond strength in MPa Minimum (MPa) Maximum (MPa)

Score 0 7.0490 ± 2.64984 3.19 12.67

Score 1 10.9273 ± 1.75130 8.86 13.83
Score 2 13.2976 ± 1.45096 11.00 14.38
Score 3 13.9000 13.90 13.90

ARI—adhesive remnant index; MPa—megapascal

156

Influence of Various Surface Conditioning Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Porcelain Surface
Table 3: Groups based on individual methods
Groups Yes 95% confidence interval
Mean SBS in MPa Lower bound Upper bound
Silane based 10.98 ± 1.93 8.03 14.38
SAB based 9.49 ± 3.81 3.19 14.38
HFA based 6.82 ± 2.65 3.50 11.00
DB based 10.46 ± 0.69 9.48 11.46
Air abrasion based 9.03 ± 0.59 8.03 10.15
SAB—sandblast; HFA—hydrofluoric acid; DB—diamond bur; *—significant
was higher and the difference was significant (p < 0.001). As
compared to DB-based group (10.46 ± 0.69 MPa) the non-
DB-based group was lower (8.66 ± 3.40 MPa) but the
difference was not significant (p > 0.001). As compared to
AA group (9.03 ± 0.59 MPa) the non-AA group was lower
(8.87 ± 3.46 MPa) but again the difference was not significant
(p > 0.001) (Table 3). On examining the non-DB-based results
further, it was observed that 95% confidence interval (CI) was
wide; mean 8.67 ± 3.41; 95% CI was 7.86 to 9.49 and a range
of 3.19 to 14.38 MPa. Whereas the DB-based group results
yielded a mean: 10.47 ± 0.69; 95% CI: 9.97 to 10.96 and a
range of 9.48 to 11.46 MPa. The wide difference in the non-
DB-based technique has probably contributed to the absence
of significance of p-value. On examining the AA group results
further it was observed that 95% confidence interval was
significant (mean: 9.03 ± 0.59; 95% CI: 8.6-9.45 and a range:
8.02-10.15 MPa). The AA has a good mean SBS (10.40 ± 0.69
MPa) only second to HFA based (10.98 ± 1.93 MPa).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to find the most reliable method for
bonding metal brackets onto porcelain fused metal ceramic
crowns. The use of AA was intended for clinical application
with several core advantages namely, (1) versatility, (2) less
technique sensitivity, (3) avoidance of hazardous material, with
high SBS that can be comparable to existing surface
conditioning methods.15,16 The bond strength is also influenced
by a number of environmental factors which has to be taken
into consideration. 17,18 In the present investigation the
specimens were subjected to TC to simulate ageing as in oral
conditions.15 TC of at least 500 cycles is required to test the
bond strength of brackets to porcelain and shear bond testing
after TC has been the standard method of measuring the bond
strength of brackets to different substrates. The next important
preparation is the surface roughening of the sample which is a
pre-requisite for achieving sufficient bond strength on metal
or porcelain. Surface roughening increases the surface area
available for chemical and mechanical retention and has been
proposed by several authors as an effective way to increase
the bond strength between composite and porcelain.19,20
Removal of the glaze by grinding with stones reduces the
The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, July-September 2013;47(3):154-158
JIOS
No. 95% confidence interval p-value
Mean SBS in MPa Lower bound Upper bound
5.40 ± 1.50 3.19 8.86 0.000*
8.28 ± 2.46 3.50 11.46 0.095
9.58 ± 3.14 3.19 14.38 0.001*
8.66 ± 3.40 3.19 14.38 0.102
8.87 ± 3.46 3.19 14.38 0.885
transverse strength of porcelain thereby increasing crack
propagation.21 Hence, in this study deglazing of the samples
were done by SAB. Ten samples which were subjected to SAB
alone were treated as control group.
The retention of the bracket to acid-etched enamel relies
on penetration of bonding composite into the etched enamel
by formation of resin tags. The glazed surface of porcelain
crown do not permit such resin tag formation. Previous
research has shown that surface conditioning followed by silane
application significantly improved the bond strength.22 In the
porcelain-composite bond, silane functions as a coupling
agent. The role of a coupling agent is to adsorb onto and alter
the surface of porcelain, facilitating interaction.23 In this study
the samples in which silane was not used, yielded very low
SBS (< 6 MPa) (SAB, SH and HFA). Superior bond strength
was observed in samples following the use of silane coupling
agent (SSi, SHS, DSi and ASi).24
Another important factor to be taken into consideration is
the kind of bond failure. Cohesive failures within the ceramic
indicate that the composite resin-ceramic compound was
stronger than the ceramic layer itself.25 Cohesive failures occur
when SBS is higher than 13 MPa.26 An ARI score of 3, only in
one sample (SSi) is reminiscent of the fact that there was no
cohesive failure in the study. In clinical practice the incidence
of ceramic damage while debonding the brackets are stated to
be very low, since peeling forces are predominant and are
different from shear testing in laboratory.5 Intraoral SAB with
aluminium oxide exhibited high surface roughness which
results in more repair work, like polishing after debonding.27,28
Given the convenience of eliminating the hazards associated
with using HFA without a rubber dam during bonding
orthodontic brackets, it would be of interest to determine
whether an alternative system produces acceptable SBS.29 So
in our study we made an effort to alter the porcelain surface
with AA sprays, which contained sodium bicarbonate as an
abrasive.30
Owing to its toxicity and handling issues HFA is less
preferred for chairside application. Hence, in our opinion AA-
based methods are more clinically relevant and the ease of
handling will facilitate us to use the advantage of high SBS.
Therefore, AA conditioning can be considered for surface
treatment before bracket bonding.
157
Jayakumar Ganesan et al
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this study the following conclusions
were made:
1. The results indicated that surface conditioning alone
without silanation produced significantly low SBS. The use
of silane was the single most important factor in
determining satisfactory bond strength.
2. It was not necessary to use HFA which is highly toxic and
corrosive, to achieve satisfactory bond strength.
3. Diamond bur surface conditioning followed by silanation
produced favorable bond strength.
4. AA followed by silanation produced favorable bond
strength and might have the potential to replace alternative
methods.
REFERENCES
1. Zachrisson YØ, Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Surface
preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:420-30.
2. Cochran D, O’Keefe KL, Turner DT, Powers JM. Bond strength
of orthodontic composite cement to treated porcelain. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:297-300.
3. Gillis I, Redlich M. The effect of different porcelain conditioning
techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:387-92.
4. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akca K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic
orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:617-20.
5. Zachrisson BU. Orthodontic bonding to artificial tooth surfaces:
Clinical versus laboratory findings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2000;117:592-94.
6. Aida M, Hayakawa T, Mizukawa K. Adhesion of composite to
porcelain with various surface conditions. J Prosthet Dent
1995;73:464-70.
7. Gerbo LR, Barnes CM, Leinfelder KF. Applications of the air-
powder polisher in clinical orthodontics. Am J Orthodont
Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:71-73.
8. Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W, Özcan M. Influence of various
surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal
brackets to ceramic surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2003;123:540-46.
9. Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength
of orthodontic brackets to porcelain. Br J Orthod 1999;26:285-90.
10. Kern M, Fechtig T, Strub JR. Influence of water storage and
thermal cycling on the fracture strength of all-porcelain,
resinbonded fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:
251-56.
11. International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry-polymer-
based crown and bridge materials. Amendment 1996; ISO10477.
12. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength
testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994;21:33-43.
158
13. Winchester L, Orth M. Direct orthodontic bonding to porcelain:
An in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991;18:299-308.
14. Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning
as an alternative to acid etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1984;85:333-40.
15. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Bohme A. Shear bond strengths attained in
vitro with light-cured glass ionomers vs composite adhesives in
bonding ceramic brackets to metal or porcelain. J Adhes Dent
1999;1:243-53.
16. Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding in orthodontic
attachments to teeth: The relation of adhesive bond strength to
gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod 1975;3:91-95.
17. Lu R, Harcourt JK, Tyas MJ, Alexander B. An investigation of
the composite resin/porcelain interface. Aust Dent J 1992;37:
12-19.
18. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Torres TJ, Avera SP. Shear bond
strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthet Dent
1991;4:17-23.
19. Sinha PK, Nanda RS. The effect of different bonding and debonding
techniques on debonding ceramic orthodontic brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:132-37.
20. Karan S, Buyukyilmaz T, Serdar Toroglu M. Orthodontic bonding
to several ceramic surfaces: Are there acceptable alternatives to
conventional methods? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2007;132:144.e7-e14.
21. Wolf DM, Powers JM, O’Keefe KL. Bond strength of composite
to etched and sandblasted porcelain. Am J Dent 1993;6:155-58.
22. 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.
23. Plueddemann E. Silane coupling agents. New York: Plenum Press
1982:116-35.
24. Lacy AM, LaLuz J, Watanabe BS, Dellinges M. Effect of porcelain
surface treatment on the bond to composite. J Prosth Dent
1988;60:288-91.
25. Diaz-Arnold AM, Wistrom DW, Aquilino SA, Swift EJ. Bond
strengths of porcelain repair adhesive systems. Am J Dent
1993;6:291-94.
26. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of
porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin
bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:355-59.
27. Winchester L, Orth M. Direct orthodontic bonding to porcelain:
An in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991;18:299-308.
28. Özcan M. Fracture strength of ceramic-fused-to-metal crowns
repaired with two intraoral air-abrasion techniques and some
aspects of silane treatment—a laboratory and clinical study.
Cologne, Germany: University of Cologne; 1999 [dissertation].
29. Hayakawa T, Horie K, Aida M, Kanaya H, Kobayashi T, Murata
Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the
bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Mater 1992;8:238-40.
30. Proano P, Pfeiffer P, Nergiz I, Niedermeier W. Shear bond strength
of repair resin using an intraoral tribochemical coating on
ceramometal, ceramic and resin surfaces. J Adhes Sci Technol
1998;12:1121-35.