Effects of Novel versus Conventional Porcelain Surface Treatments on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Authors: Sobouti Farhad , Aryana Mehdi , Dadgar Sepideh , Alizadeh Navaei Reza , Rakhshan Vahid 
Published: January 2022

Background. Despite the importance of identifying proper novel porcelain preparation techniques to improve bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces, and despite the highly controversial results on this subject, no systematic review or meta‐analysis exists in this regard. Objective. To comparatively summarize the effects of all the available porcelain surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of orthodontic brackets (metal, ceramic, polycarbonate) bonded to feldspathic porcelain restorations. Search Methods. A search was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and February 2021 in PubMed, MeSH, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and reference lists. Eligibility Criteria. English‐language articles comparing SBS of feldspathic porcelain’s surface preparation methods for metal/ceramic/polycarbonate orthodontic brackets were included. Articles comparing silanes/bonding agents/primers without assessing roughening techniques were excluded. Data Analysis. Studies were summarized and risk of bias assessed. Each treatment’s SBS was compared with the 6 and 10 MPa recommended thresholds. Studies including comparator (HF [hydrofluoric acid] + silane + bonding) were candidates for meta‐analysis. ARI scores were dichotomized. Fixed‐ and random‐effects models were used and forest plots drawn. Egger regressions and/or funnel plots were used to assess publication biases. Results. Thirty‐two studies were included (140 groups of SBS, 82 groups of ARI). Bond strengths of 21 studies were meta‐analyzed (64 comparisons in 14 meta‐analyses). ARIs of 12 articles were meta‐analyzed (28 comparisons in 8 meta‐analyses). Certain protocols provided bond strengths poorer than HF + silane + bonding: “abrasion + bonding, diamond bur + bonding, HF + bonding, Nd:YAG laser (1 W) + silane + bonding, CO2 laser (2 W/2 Hz) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding.” Abrasion + HF + silane + bonding might act almost better than HF + silane + bonding. Abrasion + silane + bonding yields controversial results, being slightly (marginally significantly) better than HF + silane + bonding. Some protocols had controversial results with their overall effects being close to HF + silane + bonding: “Cojet + silane + bonding, diamond bur + silane + bonding, Er:YAG laser (1.6 W/20 Hz) + silane + bonding.” Few methods provided bond strengths similar to HF + silane + bonding without much controversy: “Nd:YAG laser (2 W) + silane + bonding” and “phosphoric acid + silane + bonding” (in ceramic brackets). ARIs were either similar to HF + silane + bonding or relatively skewed towards the “no resin on porcelain” end. The risk of bias was rather low. Limitations. All the found studies were in vitro and thus not easily translatable to clinical conditions. Many metasamples were small. Conclusions. The preparation methods HF + silane + bonding, abrasion + HF + silane + bonding, Nd:YAG (2 W) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding (in ceramic brackets) might provide stronger bonds.