Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 102
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 180-184

Porcelain color alteration after orthodontic bonding using three different surface preparation methods


1 Department of Orthodontics, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran
3 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Web Publication4-May-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mina Moradi
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.231860

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: By increasing the number of adults seeking orthodontic treatment bonding orthodontic brackets to the surfaces other than intact enamel has become necessary. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of three different surface preparation methods associated with orthodontic bonding on porcelain color alteration.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study forty-five porcelain discs (6- mm diameter, 2- mm thickness) were fabricated. The color of the specimens was evaluated by means of a Vita Easyshade. Commision Internationale de I'Eclairage (CIE) L* a* b* system was used for color measurement. Then, the specimens were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15) with respect to the surface preparation methods including a 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HF) + silane, sandblasting, and sandblasting + 9.6% HF + silane. Metal orthodontic brackets were bonded. Samples were stored in 37° c water for 24 hours. Afterward, the brackets were debonded with a debonding plier and porcelain surfaces were polished with a tungsten-carbide bur. The color assessment was done, and ΔE values were measured. ΔE = 3.7 units were considered as an acceptability threshold. Data were analyzed with Paired t-test and one-way ANOVA. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
Results: Orthodontic bonding changed the color parameters significantly. Mean L*, a* and b* difference were 1.35 ± 2.41, 0.19 ± 0.80, 0.89 ± 1.27 units, respectively (P = 0.003 for L*, P < 0.001 for a* and b*). There was not any significant difference in ΔE units between the groups (P = 0.456). In all the groups the mean ΔE values were below 3.7 units and within the clinically acceptable limit.
Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment changed the CIE color parameters of porcelain surface. However, the color alteration is below the clinically acceptable threshold. With regard to color alteration, there is no difference between different surface conditioning methods.

Keywords: Dental bonding, dental debonding, dental porcelain, orthodontic brackets


How to cite this article:
Moradinezhad M, Moradi M, Shamohammadi M, Hormozi E, Ghorani A. Porcelain color alteration after orthodontic bonding using three different surface preparation methods. Dent Res J 2018;15:180-4

How to cite this URL:
Moradinezhad M, Moradi M, Shamohammadi M, Hormozi E, Ghorani A. Porcelain color alteration after orthodontic bonding using three different surface preparation methods. Dent Res J [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 22];15:180-4. Available from: http://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2018/15/3/180/231860




  Introduction Top


Bonding orthodontic brackets to porcelain restoration is an integral part of adult orthodontic treatment.[1],[2] The adhesion between restoration and orthodontic attachment must be strong enough to withstand stresses, yet causes the least deleterious effect on the surface properties.[3],[4] Eustaquio et al.[5] confirmed that bonding orthodontic brackets damaged the porcelain surface. Surface conditioning method, adhesive type, and debonding force affect the incidence of porcelain damage.[6] Besides structural defects, porcelain esthetic characteristics are also compromised.[7],[8]

Color shade is one of the primary determinants of the restoration esthetics. In color analysis three parameters of value, hue and chrome are considered.[9] The Commision Internationale de I'Eclairage (CIE) L * a* b* is the standard color measurement system. The L * parameter indicates the value and ranges from 0 (black) to 100 (white); the a * parameter corresponds redness (a > 0) or greenness (a < 0); and b* parameter is a measure of yellowness (b > 0) or blueness (b < 0).[10] ΔE indicates the magnitude of color change and 1 - 3.7 units have been considered as a clinically acceptable threshold.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16]

Since porcelain surface is amenable to resin penetration, various surface conditioning methods have been suggested to improve the bond strength.[17],[18],[19] A systematic review proved that etching the porcelain with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HF) and application of silane yielded the highest bond strength. Sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles also showed an acceptable result.[20] Furthermore, surface preparation can be performed with the combination of these methods.[21]

Herion et al.[7] compared the effect of bonding methods on porcelain surface alteration. They used phosphoric acid with silane and sandblasting plus 9.6% HF and silane as conditioning methods. They reported that sandblasting plus 9.6% HF and silane changed the porcelain color significantly. In another study porcelain surface roughness, color and gloss alteration after orthodontic bonding was investigated. 9.6% HF was used as a surface conditioning method. The result showed that orthodontic bonding changed color parameters.[8]

Until now, most of the investigations have focused on the effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain.[21],[22],[23],[24] However, the effect of these methods on porcelain surface properties has been neglected. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the porcelain color alteration after orthodontic bonding using three surface preparation methods including 9.6% HF + silane, sandblasting, and sandblasting + 9.6% HF + silane. The null hypothesis was there wasn't any porcelain color change after orthodontic bonding using different surface conditioning methods.


  Materials and Methods Top


In this in vitro study forty-five disc-shaped feldspathic porcelain (6 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness), shade B2 (Vitadur Alpha, Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) were fabricated. Spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade, Vita Zahnfabrik) was used to measure the color of the porcelain discs on the basis of CIE L*a*b system. Before each measurement the device was calibrated and its tip was kept at right angle of the surface.

Then, the specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 15). Before any surface treatment, the glaze was removed with a diamond bur (BluWhite Diamonds, Kerr Dental, Switzerland).

In group 1, porcelain was etched with 9.6% HF (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) for 1 min. After rinsing and drying, a thin layer of silane (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) was painted on the surface with a disposable micro-brush. Group 2 was sandblasted with 50-μm aluminum oxide at 50 psi for 4 seconds at a 10 millimeter distance (Micro-Etcher ERC II, Danville Engineering, San Ramon, California, USA). In group 3 the surface was sandblasted, then etched with 9.6% HF (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) for 1 minute. After rinsing and drying, silane (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) was applied for 1 minute.

For bonding, adhesive primer (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif, USA) was painted on the surface of the specimens. Subsequently, metal standard edgewise maxillary central incisor bracket with 0.022-inch slot and a surface area of 12.09 mm2 (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, USA) was bonded with the adhesive paste (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif, USA). The bracket was pressured to minimize the adhesive thickness. Excessive resin was removed from the periphery with a probe. The adhesive was polymerized (Ortholux LED, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif, USA) for 40 seconds (20 seconds on each wing).

The specimens were stored in 37°c water for 24 hours. Afterward, the brackets were debonded with gentle peeling force using debonding plier (Inspire Ice Debonding Kit, Ormco, Glendora, California, USA). The residual resin was removed with 12 fluted tungsten-carbide bur (Carbide bur, Dentaurum, Germany) in low-speed hand piece at 2000 rpm. Polishing was performed until the surface became visually smooth.

Again, color measurement was performed for all the specimens with the same device. The color alteration was calculated with the following equation: ΔE= ([ΔL*]2+[Δa*]2+[Δb*]2)0.5. ΔE = 3.7 units was considered as an acceptability threshold.[9],[15],[16]

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by paired t-test to compare L*, a*, b* parameters at the baseline and after polishing. One-way ANOVA was used to compare different surface preparation methods. SPSS software (SPSS version 17.0, SPSS Inc; Chicago, IL, USA) was used for data analysis. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05.


  Results Top


The results showed that orthodontic bonding significantly changed the CIE color parameters. After debonding, mean L*, a* and b* values decreased (1.35 ± 2.41, 0.19 ± 0.80, 0.89 ± 1.27 units respectively) [P = 0.003 for L*, P < 0.001 for a* and b*; [Table 1]. In all the groups the mean ΔE value was below 3.7 units, within an acceptable range. One-way ANOVA showed that there was not any significant difference in mean ΔE value between the groups [P = 0.456; [Table 2].
Table 1: Mean Commision Internationale de I’Eclairage color parameters of all the samples at the baseline and after debonding

Click here to view
Table 2: One-way ANOVA of?E for the surface preparation methods

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Our results indicated that orthodontic bonding would change the porcelain color. This finding is in agreement with Herion et al.[7] They conditioned porcelain surface with two different methods including phosphoric acid with silane and sandblasting plus 9.6% HF and silane. They reported that sandblasting plus 9.6% HF and silane significantly changed the color. The mean ΔE after finishing bur was 4.37 units. In this study, the mean ΔE for this conditioning method was (2.75 ± 1.99) units. The difference may be attributed to different etching time. Herion et al.[7] etched the surface for 4 minutes, whereas the etching time in our study was 1 minute. Prolonged etching creates deeper resin tags. Since debonding procedure cannot remove all the resin impregnations, remnant adhesive would absorb food colorant and bracket corrosion products. In addition, resin tags modify the reflective index of the surface.[9],[15],[16] Furthermore, physicochemical reactions in resin composite cause the discoloration of the resin.[25] The difference in the mean ΔE may also arise from using different color measurement devices. Khashayar et al.[26] compared two colorimeter devices and stated that the measurements of different devices are not comparable. Dozić et al.[27] compared five different color measurement devices and finally concluded that Vita Easyshade is the most reliable.

We evaluated the CIE L*a*b* parameters and detected a statistically significant difference between pre bonding and post debonding measurements for all three parameters. It is in accordance with the study performed by Jarvis et al.[8] They worked on high-fusing and low-fusing porcelain and used 9.6% HF as a surface conditioning method. L* value, specularly reflected light component, is highly sensitive to surface roughness. Surface-localized random specular reflection increased in rough surface. Consequently, the surface appeared lighter.[11] Increased level of b* value changed the color toward yellow. Chemical component, filler content, and polymerization conversion of the adhesive resin affect the color stability. In a clinical study, higher color alteration was occurred in chemically cured composite.[28]

In comparison, the effect of different surface preparation methods on porcelain color alteration, we did not find any significant difference between the methods. In contrast, Herion et al.[7] reported a significant difference between sandblasting plus 9.6% HF and silane and phosphoric acid with silane.

In selection of a conditioning method, providing adequate bond strength while minimizing surface damage are two important considerations.[3],[4] Saraç et al.[21] compared the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to porcelain with three different surface treatment methods including sandblasting plus HF and silane, sandblasting and silane, and HF with silane. The authors reported the highest SBS in the sandblasting plus HF and silane group. According to the Saraç et al.[21] and our results sandblasting plus HF and silane seems to be an acceptable conditioning method.

The limitations of this study include systematic and random errors in spectrophotometric measurement, lack of food colorant and inability in the simulation of the mechanical wear that brushing causes. Further research with different types of porcelain, adhesives, conditioning methods, and performing clinical studies to evaluate the clinical significance of the subject is suggested.


  Conclusion Top


  1. Orthodontic bonding changes L*a*b* color parameters
  2. Mean ΔE value with different surface treatment methods was below the acceptable threshold
  3. There was not any significant difference in color alteration induced by different conditioning methods.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Lee JY, Kim JS, Hwang CJ. Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets using various zirconia primers. Korean J orthod 2015;45:164-70.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Lee JH, Lee M, Kim NH, Hwang CJ. Resin bonding of metal brackets to glazed zirconia with a porcelain primer. Korean J orthod 2015;45:299-307.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Boncuk Y, Cehreli ZC, Polat-Ozsoy O. Effects of different orthodontic adhesives and resin removal techniques on enamel color alteration. Angle Orthod 2014;84:634-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Joo HJ, Lee YK, Lee DY, Kim YJ, Lim YK. Influence of orthodontic adhesives and clean-up procedures on the stain susceptibility of enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod 2011;81:334-40.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Eustaquio R, Garner LD, Moore BK. Comparative tensile strengths of bracket bonded to porcelain with orthodontic adhesive and porcelain systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:421-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Kao EC, Johnston WM. Fracture incidence on debonding of orthodontic brackets from porcelain veneer laminates. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:631-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Herion DT, Ferracane JL, Covell DA Jr. Porcelain surface alterations and refinishing after use of two orthodontic bonding methods. Angle Orthod 2010;80:167-74.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Jarvis J, Zinelis S, Eliades T, Bradley TG. Porcelain surface roughness, color and gloss changes after orthodontic bonding. Angle Orthod 2006;76:274-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Trakyali G, Ozdemir FI, Arun T. Enamel colour changes at debonding and after finishing procedures using five different adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:397-401.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Commision Internationale de I'Eclairage. Colorimetry. CIE Publication No. 15, Supplement 2. Commision Internationale de I'Eclairage, Vienna. 1976.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Wee AG, Monaghan P, Johnston WM. Variation in color between intended and matched shade and fabricated shade of dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:657-66.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Hasegawa A, Ikeda I, Kawaguzhi S. Color and translucency of in vivo natural central incisors. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:418-23.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kuehni RG, Marcus RT. An experiment in visual scaling of small colour differences. Color Res Appl 1979;4:83-91.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Johnston WM, Kao EC. Assessment of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colourimetry. J Dent Res 1989;68:819-22.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Zaher AR, Abdalla EM, Abdel Motie MA, Rehman NA, Kassem H, Athanasiou AE. Enamel colour changes after debonding using various bonding systems. J Orthod 2012;39:82-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Eliades T, Kakaboura A, Eliades G, Bradley TG. Comparison of enamel colour changes associated with orthodontic bonding using two different adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:85-90.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.
Türkkahraman H, Küçükeşümen HC. Porcelain surface -conditioning techniques and the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:440-3.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Karan S, Büyükyılmaz T, Toroglu MS. Orthodontic bonding to several ceramic surfaces: Are there acceptable alternatives to conventional methods? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:144.e7-14.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ahrari F, Heravi F, Hosseini M. CO2 laser conditioning of porcelain surfaces for bonding metal orthodontic brackets. Lasers Med Sci 2013;28:1091-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.
Grewal Bach GK, Torrealba Y, Lagravère MO. Orthodontic bonding to porcelain: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2014;84:555-60.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turkb S, Sarac D, Turkd T. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:723-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Saraç YS, Külünk T, Elekdaǧ-Türk S, Saraç D, Türk T. Effects of surface-conditioning methods on shear bond strength of brackets bonded to different all-ceramic materials. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:667-72.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Larmour CJ, Bateman G, Stirrups DR. An investigation into the bonding of orthodontic attachments to porcelain. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:74-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Ajlouni R, Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, Soliman M, Laffoon J. The effect of porcelain surface conditioning on bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2005;75:858-64.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.
Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:11-4.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.
Khashayar G, Dozic A, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Data comparison between two dental spectrophotometers. Operative dent. 2012;37:12-20.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Dozic A, Kleverlaan CJ, El-Zohairy A, Feilzer AJ, Khashayar G. Performance of five commercially available tooth color-measuring devices. J Prosthodont 2007;16:93-100.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA, Kolokithas G. Tooth-color assessment after orthodontic treatment: A prospective clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:537.e1-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed373    
    Printed43    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded108    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal