Page 12 - SPEMD_58-2

68 rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac. 2017;58(2):65-70

4
tic metal 2,4,5 and ceramic brackets. One also found significant
Table 2. Experimental conditions
differences between the surface materials, but an interaction of
8
Number / % of studies variables made results unable to be interpreted. One study stat-
Experimental condition reporting the experimental ed that the surface type did not influence bond strength. 7
condition
Substrate origin 10 100 Type of surface treatment (n=7). Four studies evaluated three
different surface treatments, 2,5,7,9 two evaluated two pre-treat-
Acrylic composition description 4 40
ments 10,11 and one analysed 14 groups all with different sub-
12
Surface treatment 10 100 strate treatments. The surface treatments applied were the
5
following: none (control), 5,12 polished with greenstone, sand-
Surfaces storage time before 1 10
12
bonding blasted, 2,5,7,9,11,12 silane, diamond bur, 10,11,12 9.6% hydrofluoric
12
acid, 37% phosphoric acid, 7,12 monomer, 2,12 plastic condition-
Surfaces storage temperature before 12 2,9 2
bonding 1 10 er, silica carbide paper, pumice polishing paste, pumice and
7
10
rubber cup and Laser Er:YAG. Sandblasting with 50-m Al O
3
2
Surfaces storage solution before particles was performed in test groups of six studies. One study
bonding 1 10
used a diamond bur not to grid the acrylic but to create a win-
11
Bracket material 8 80 dow in order to enhance the mechanical adhesion. All studies
performed shear bond tests and presented the mean results in
:: metal 8 80
MPa. Five studies identified bond strength as being influenced
:: ceramics 1 10 by the surface treatment protocols. 2,5,7,9,11 One study related a
12
higher roughness to an increase in the bond strength. Anoth-
Bracket area 5 50
er study also indicated that bond strength was influenced by the
Type of bracket 8 80 surface treatment but only for the light-cure composite resin. 10
Type of etchant 8 80
Type of adhesive (n=5). Three articles reported a comparison
Time of etching 7 70 between the use of an acrylic resin and a light-cure composite
Adhesive type 10 100 resin and between a bond metal bracket and an acrylic sur-
face. 2,10,13 One article compared a composite resin with a cya-
Amount of force at bracket 3 30 noacrylate adhesive and Panavia TM used in different protocols.
11
placement
Another study evaluated the adhesion of a resin-reinforced
Light device type 6 60 glass ionomer to metal and ceramic brackets and of a compos-
ite resin to acrylic substrates. Bond strength was reported after
4
Total polymerization time 6 60
shear bond strength tests in MPa and was shown to be influ-
Light directions 4 40 enced by the type of adhesive in four articles. 2,10,11,13 Only one
study showed no influence of the adhesives on bond strength. 4
Sample storage time 9 90
Sample storage solution 8 80 Ageing samples protocols (n=3). Three studies evaluated the
Sample storage temperature 8 80 influence of thermocycling fatigue tests on bond strength. 2,7,11
Two of them presented information on the number of cycles, the
Thermocycling 3 30 temperature of the solution and the dwell time between baths.
2,7
11
Thermocycling cycles 3 30 One mentioned only the number of thermal cycles. All studies
performed 500 cycles of thermocycling fatigue tests to age the
Thermocycling water baths 2,7,11
temperature 2 20 study samples. The shear bond strength was presented in
MPa and reported contradictorily by authors regarding its asso-
Shear testing as test method 10 100 ciation with the thermocycling. One study stated an influence
2
11
Tensil testing as test method 0 0 of thermocycling on adhesiveness, other did not and the third
7
indirectly suggested that influence. In one study, the samples
Bond strength in MPa 10 100 were aged by storing them in distilled water at 35ºC for a week
Crosshead speed 10 100 and the evaluation groups were stored for a whole month. 5
ARI 5 50
Other relevant variables
Magnifcation used in determining 5 50 Adhesive remnant index (ARI) and failure mode. The adhe-
ARI sive remnant index, firstly described by Artun and Bergland
14
(1984), was used in five studies 2,5,8,9,10 to categorise the
Failure mode 4 40
amount of adhesive remaining on the substrate 2,5,8,9 and/or
Surface roughness 1 10 determine the adhesion failure mode. Three studies used
5,9
SEM 2 20 the ARI only for categorisation. Of those, one found an in-
consistent pattern but did not draw any conclusions based
Inclusion criteria 8
on that, and other only described the clinical situation by