This study was conducted in order to investigate whether enamel sandblasting as an adjunct or substitute to the acid-etch technique has an effect on the shear bond strength (SBS) and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex using the DIN 13990:2017-04 standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Upper central incisor brackets (discovery®, Dentaurum, Germany) were bonded using Transbond XT™ (3M Unitek, Germany) on bovine incisors prepared by four different methods (15 samples each): sandblasting with 27 μm AlO at 1.2 bar (s), acid etching with 37.4% phosphoric acid (a), sandblasting with 27 μm AlO at 1.2 bar followed by acid etching (s1a), and sandblasting with 50 μm AlO at 5.7 bar followed by acid etching (s2a). The SBS and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were measured, followed by one-way analysis of variance and Fisher's exact tests at 5%.
The SBS in groups s (5.6 ± 2.2 MPa), a (17.1 ± 4.3 MPa), s1a (18.3 ± 4.3 MPa), and s2a (18.5 ± 4.6 MPa) indicated that the s group was significantly inferior to all the other groups (p < 0.001). Likewise, the ARI analysis indicated a different performance of the s group (mostly ARI of 0) compared to the other groups (p < 0.001) and a tendency for different ARI between the a and s1a/s2a groups.
In vitro enamel sandblasting could not substitute acid etching and did not offer improved SBS when used before acid etching, regardless of air pressure and powder granulation. Sandblasting without acid etching produced less residual resin on the tooth after debonding.
The clinical use of adjunct enamel sandblasting prior to etching to enhance SBS has to be questioned.