The effect of metal surface treatment on bond strength interface between metal/cement

Objective: This study evaluated the hypothesis that different treatments of surface upon three metal alloys for metal ceramic dental prostheses (Gold; Nickel-Chromium; Titanium) do not Influence the values of bond strength with resin cement. Material and Methods: Twenty blocks, 5x5x5 mm, of each alloy were divided into two subgroups (n = 10) according to surface treatments: 1 (Primer): sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles 110 µm (Al2O3) + Alloy Primer (Kuraray); 2 (Cojet): sandblasting with silica oxide particles with Cojet-Sand + Silane ESPE-Sil. The conditioned blocks of each group were cemented, with Panavia F, to resin blocks under constant load of 750 g/10 min. The sets were cut to obtain 4 samples with dimensions of 10x1x1 mm per block (n = 10) and the adhesive surface with approximately 1 mm2. The microtensile test was done in the universal testing machine at 1 mm/min crosshead speed. The values of bond strength and standard deviation (MPa) were: Au P: 7.33 ± 1.93d; Au C: 13.35 ± 2.18c; NiCr P: 23.56 ± 6.5b; NiCr C: 42.6 ± 5.84a; Ti P: 26.17 ± 1.94b; Ti C: 44.30 ± 2.3a. Data were analyzed by variance test (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05. Results: The results indicated that the conditioning with treatment 2 increased the bond strength between the resin cement and alloys. The lowest bond strengths values were obtained with gold alloy, regardless the surface treatment. Conclusion: The results denied the hypothesis that the metallic alloys surface treatments do not alter the bond strengths values.

Download Full-text

Effects of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between Resin Cement and a New Zirconia-reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/14-357-l ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 41 (3) ◽

pp. 284-292 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

TP Sato ◽

LC Anami ◽

RM Melo ◽

LF Valandro ◽

MA Bottino

Keyword(s):

Contact Angle ◽

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Hydrofluoric Acid ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Lithium Silicate ◽

Microtensile Bond Strength ◽

Silicate Ceramic

SUMMARY This study evaluated the effects of surface treatments on the bond strength between the new zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLS) and resin cement. VITA Suprinity blocks were crystallized according to the manufacturer's instructions and randomly assigned to six groups (N=36; n=6), according to the surface treatment to be performed and aging conditions: HF20, 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds, baseline (control); HF20tc, 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds, aging; HF40, 10% hydrofluoric acid for 40 seconds, baseline; HF40tc, 10% hydrofluoric acid for 40 seconds, aging; CJ, CoJet sandblasting (25 seconds, 2.5 bar, 15-mm distance), baseline; and CJtc, CoJet sandblasting (25 seconds, 2.5 bar, 15-mm distance), aging. All specimens were silanized (Monobond S) and cemented with Panavia F to newly polymerized Z250 resin blocks. After specimens were immersed for 24 hours in distilled water at 37° C, 1-mm2 cross-section microbars were obtained by means of a cutting machine under constant cooling. Baseline groups were immediately tested, whereas “tc” groups were used to analyze the effect of aging on bond strength (10,000 thermal cycles, 5/55°C, 30-second bath). The microtensile bond strength test was performed with a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min), and bond strength (MPa) was calculated when the load-to-failure (N) was divided by the adhesive area (mm2). We also evaluated the surface roughness (Sa, average roughness; Str, texture aspect ratio; Sdr, developed interfacial area ratio) and the contact angle resulting from the treatments. Data were statistically analyzed by one- or two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (all α=5%). The failure mode of each specimen was evaluated by stereomicroscopy, and representative specimens were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. The microtensile bond strength was affected by the surface conditioning (p<0.0001), storage condition (p<0.0001), and the interaction between them (p=0.0012). The adhesion for HF etching was stable, whereas for CJ, aging significantly damaged the adhesion. Most failures were predominantly adhesive between ceramic and cement (52.6%). The roughness of the treated samples was higher compared with that of polished specimens for the three evaluated parameters (Sa, Str, and Sdr; all p<0.0001). Contact angle was also influenced by treatments (p<0.0001), with the CJ group showing values similar to those of control specimens. It can be concluded that the three surface treatment techniques present favorable immediate results, but silica coating was not effective in maintaining the bond strength over the long term.

Download Full-text

Effects of Universal Adhesive on Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cement to Zirconia Ceramic with Different Surface Treatments

International Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1155/2021/5517382 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-6

Author(s):

Zohreh Moradi ◽

Farnoosh Akbari ◽

Sara Valizadeh

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Zirconia Ceramic ◽

Single Bond ◽

Universal Adhesive

Aim. This study aimed to assess shear bond strength (SBS) of resin cement to zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments by using Single Bond Universal. Methods. In this in vitro study, 50 zirconia discs (2 × 6 mm) were divided into 5 groups of (I) sandblasting with silica-coated alumina (CoJet) + silane + Single Bond 2, (II) sandblasting with CoJet + Single Bond Universal, (III) sandblasting with alumina + Single Bond Universal, (IV) sandblasting with alumina + Z-Prime Plus, and (V) Single Bond Universal with no surface treatment. Resin cement was applied in plastic tubes (3 × 5 mm2), and after 10,000 thermal cycles, the SBS was measured by a universal testing machine. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope at × 40 magnification. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results. The maximum (6.56 ± 4.29 MPa) and minimum (1.94 ± 1.96 MPa) SBS values were noted in groups III and I, respectively. Group III had the highest frequency of mixed failure (60%). Group V had the maximum frequency of adhesive failure (100%). Conclusion. Single Bond Universal + sandblasting with alumina or silica-coated alumina particles is an acceptable method to provide a strong SBS between resin cement and zirconia.

Download Full-text

Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-ceramic Material

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1954 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (11) ◽

pp. 920-925 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Bandar MA Al-Makramani ◽

Fuad A Al-Sanabani ◽

Abdul AA Razak ◽

Mohamed I Abu-Hassan ◽

Ibrahim Z AL-Shami ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Ceramic Material ◽

Failure Modes ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Control Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

All Ceramic ◽

Effect Of Surface

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) of Turkom-Cera (Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn. Bhd., Puchong, Malaysia) all-ceramic material cemented with resin cement Panavia-F (Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan). Materials and methods Forty Turkom-Cera ceramic disks (10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. The disks were wet ground to 1000-grit and subjected to four surface treatments: (1) No treatment (Control), (2) sandblasting, (3) silane application, and (4) sandblasting + silane. The four groups of 10 specimens each were bonded with Panavia-F resin cement according to manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS was determined using the universal testing machine (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure modes were recorded and a qualitative micromorphologic examination of different surface treatments was performed. The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests. Results The SBS of the control, sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups were: 10.8 ± 1.5, 16.4 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 2.5, and 19.1 ± 2.4 MPa respectively. According to the Tukey HSD test, only the mean SBS of the control group was significantly different from the other three groups. There was no significant difference between sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups. Conclusion In this study, the three surface treatments used improved the bond strength of resin cement to Turkom-Cera disks. Clinical significance The surface treatments used in this study appeared to be suitable methods for the cementation of glass infiltrated all-ceramic restorations. How to cite this article Razak AAA, Abu-Hassan MI, AL-Makramani BMA, AL-Sanabani FA, AL-Shami IZ, Almansour HM. Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-Ceramic Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(11):920-925.

Download Full-text

Effect of surface treatment of prefabricated teeth on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1590/2177-6709.22.4.047-052.oar ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 47-52 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marina Cumerlato ◽

Eduardo Martinelli de Lima ◽

Leandro Berni Osorio ◽

Eduardo Gonçalves Mota ◽

Luciane Macedo de Menezes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Positive Correlation ◽

Diamond Bur ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effects of grinding, drilling, sandblasting, and ageing prefabricated teeth (PfT) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets, as well as the effects of surface treatments on the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Methods: One-hundred-ninety-two PfT were divided into four groups (n = 48): Group 1, no surface treatment was done; Group 2, grinding was performed with a cylindrical diamond bur; Group 3, two drillings were done with a spherical diamond bur; Group 4, sandblasting was performed with 50-µm aluminum oxide. Before the experiment, half of the samples stayed immersed in distilled water at 37oC for 90 days. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and shear strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine. SBS were compared by surface treatment and by ageing with two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. ARI scores were compared between surface treatments with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test. Results: Surface treatments on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets (p< 0.01), result not observed with ageing (p= 0.45). Groups II, III, and IV showed higher SBS and greater ARI than the Group 1 (p< 0.05). SBS was greater in the groups 3 and 4 (drilling, sandblasting) than in the Group 2 (grinding) (p< 0.05). SBS and ARI showed a positive correlation (Spearman’s R2= 0.57; p< 0.05). Conclusion: Surface treatment on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets, however ageing did not show any relevance. Sandblasting and drilling showed greater SBS than grinding. There was a positive correlation between SBS and ARI.

Download Full-text

Bond Strength Assessment Between Acrylic Teeth and Acrylic Resin Repairs: Effect of Different Surface Treatments

Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences ◽

10.15517/ijds.v18i2.25035 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 109

Author(s):

M.T. Muñoz MSc ◽

E. Reales DDS ◽

L.H.M. Prates DDS, MSc, PhD ◽

C.A.M. Volpato DDS, MSc, PhD

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Acrylic Resin ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Strength Assessment ◽

Chemical Treatments ◽

Post Hoc

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength between acrylic resin teeth and autopolymerizing acrylic resin repairs after different surface treatments. Seventy-two upper anterior acrylic resin denture teeth (MFT, Vita, Germany) were selected. Specimens were randomly assigned into six groups (n=12): G1-C, without surface treatment (control); G2-M, methylmetacrylate monomer (Jet, Clássico, Brazil) application; G3-A treatment with methylmetacrylate and metiletilcetone-based bonding agent (Vitacoll, Vita, Germany). The surface of G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA was airborne-particle abraded with aluminum oxide (Polidental, Wilson, Brazil); being repeated the treatments respectively of groups G1-C, G2-M e G3-A. All groups were then repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Jet, Clássico, Brazil). Shear bond strength test was performed using an universal testing machine (Instron 4444). Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s analysis (p<0,05) were used for statistical comparison. The shear bond strengths of groups G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C, G2-M and G3-A. The shear bond strength of Group G3-A were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C and G2-M. In conclution, chemical treatments in combination with bondig agents showed significant improvements in bond strength without aluminum oxide treatment. More significantly, surface treatment with aluminum oxide particles resulted in the highest bond strength values for acrylic resin teeth repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin.

Download Full-text

Influence of Different Surface Treatments on the Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cement to Base Metal Alloys

Journal of lasers in medical sciences ◽

10.15171/jlms.2020.08 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 45-49 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Farkhondeh Raeisosadat ◽

Rahab Ghoveizi ◽

Solmaz Eskandarion ◽

Elaheh Beyabanaki ◽

Sara Tavakolizadeh

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Er:Yag Laser ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Combination Group ◽

Significance Level ◽

Laser Group ◽

Mean Differences

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of resin cement to nickel-chrome (Ni-Cr) alloy. Methods: Forty disk-shaped specimens of Ni-Cr alloy were prepared and divided into 4 groups. In the first group, the specimens’ surface was sandblasted with 50 µ Al2 O3 particles. In the second group, the specimens were prepared with the Er:YAG laser. In the third group, the specimens were prepared using the Er:YAG laser after sandblasting. In the fourth group, the specimens’ surface was covered with a thin layer of MKZ metal primer after sandblasting. Then the cylinders of composite resin were bonded to the treated metal surfaces using Panavia F2.0 resin cement. All of the samples were subjected to 2000 thermal cycles. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing machine at the crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The failure mode was also observed by a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test at a significance level of 0.05. Results: The shear bond strength from the highest to the lowest were as follows: the Er:YAG laser group, the sandblast and MKZ primer combination group, the sandblast group, and the sandblast and Er:YAG laser combination group. The mean differences of shear bond strength between the Er:YAG laser group and the sandblast group (P=0.047) and also between the Er:YAG laser group and the sandblast and Er:YAG laser combination group (P=0.015) were statistically significant. Conclusion: Among the different surface treatments employed in this study, Er:YAG laser treatment increased the shear bond strength between the metal alloy and the resin cement (Pavnavia F2).

Download Full-text

Surface Treatment Effect on Shear Bond Strength between Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1735908 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Siripan Simasetha ◽

Awiruth Klaisiri ◽

Tool Sriamporn ◽

Kraisorn Sappayatosok ◽

Niyom Thamrongananskul

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Glass Ceramic ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Control Group ◽

Ceramic Bond

Abstract Objective The study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) and resin cement (RC) using different surface treatments. Materials and Methods LDGC blocks (Vintage LD Press) were prepared, etched with 4.5% hydrofluoric acid, and randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10), depending on the surface treatments. The groups were divided as follows: 1) no surface treatment (control), 2) Silane Primer (KS), 3) Signum Ceramic Bond I (SGI), 4) Signum Ceramic Bond I/Signum Ceramic Bond II (SGI/SGII), 5) experimental silane (EXP), 6) experimental silane/Signum Ceramic Bond II (EXP/SGII), and 7) Experimental/Adper Scotchbond Multi-purpose Adhesive (EXP/ADP). The specimens were cemented to resin composite blocks with resin cement and stored in water at 37 °C for 24 hours. The specimens underwent 5,000 thermal cycles and were subjected to the SBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under the stereo microscope. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed with Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Results The highest mean SBS showed in group EXP/ADP (45.49 ± 3.37 MPa); however, this was not significantly different from group EXP/SGII (41.38 ± 2.17 MPa) (p ≥ 0.05). The lowest SBS was shown in the control group (18.36 ± 0.69 MPa). This was not significantly different from group KS (20.17 ± 1.10 MPa) (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions The different surface treatments significantly affected the SBS value between LDGC and RC. The application of pure silane coupling agent with or without the application of an adhesive improved the SBS value and bond quality.

Download Full-text

Y-TZP surface treatments and their effects on the bond strength to resin cement

Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences ◽

10.20396/bjos.v18i0.8655141 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 18 ◽

pp. e190918

Author(s):

Michele Mirian May ◽

Ana Maria Estivalete Marchionatti ◽

Luiz Felipe Valandro ◽

Edson Luiz Foletto ◽

Lucio Strazzabosco Dorneles ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Tetragonal Zirconia ◽

Silica Coating ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Air Abrasion ◽

Universal Primer ◽

Alumina Particles ◽

Bond Strengths ◽

Microshear Bond Strength

Aim: This study evaluated the effect of surface treatments of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramics on their bond strength to a resin cement. Methods: Seventy zirconia blocks (6 × 6 × 2 mm3, IPS e.max ZirCAD) were assigned into 7 groups (n=10) – as-sintered (AS), no treatment; tribochemical silica coating + silanization (TBS; Cojet-sand; ProSil); airabrasion with 45 μm alumina particles + universal primer (AAP; Monobond®Plus); fusion sputtering (FS); SiO2 nanofilm + silanization (SN; ProSil); FS+SN+ silanization (FSSN; ProSil); FS+SN+Universal Primer (FSSNP; Monobond®Plus). Afterwards, a resin cement (RelyX™ ARC) was applied inside cylinders (Ø = 0.96 mm × 1 mm height) placed on the zirconia surfaces. Microshear bond strength tests (μSBS) were carried out (1 mm/min). Failure and phase transformation analysis were performed. Bond strength data (MPa) were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis/Mann Whitney tests. Results: TBS (27 ± 1.2) and AAP (24.7 ± 0.8) showed higher bond strengths than the other groups, followed by FSSNP (15.5 ± 4.2) and FSSN (13.3 ± 3.6). FS (3.4 ± 0.44) and SN (9.5 ± 2.7) showed the lowest values (p < 0.001). Most of the specimens exhibited an adhesive failure. Conclusion: Air-abrasion by silica-coated alumina particles followed by silanization or by alumina particles followed by universal primer resulted in the highest resin bond strength to zirconia. Fusion sputtering and silica nanofilm deposition induced low strengths. However, when these methods are applied in combination and with a primer (FSSN and FSSNP), higher bond strengths may be achieved. Low bond strengths are obtained when no zirconia treatment is performed.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Bond Strength of Monolithic CAD-CAM Materials to Resin Cement Using Different Surface Treatment Methods

Journal of Advanced Oral Research ◽

10.1177/2320206819862062 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 120-127

Author(s):

Sevki Cinar ◽

Bike Altan ◽

Gokhan Akgungor

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Lithium Silicate ◽

Treatment Methods ◽

Cad Cam ◽

Post Hoc ◽

Hybrid Ceramic ◽

Silicate Ceramic

Objective: To compare the bond strength of monolithic CAD-CAM materials to resin cement using different surface treatment methods. Materials and Methods: Lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e-max CAD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Vita Suprinity), resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate), and hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) were used. Five groups of CAD-CAM blocks were treated as follows: control (C), HF etching (HF), HF etching + silanization (HF + S), sandblasting (SB), and sandblasting + silanization (SB + S). After surface treatments, SEM analyses were conducted. Specimens were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (Theracem) and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured, and failure types were categorized. Results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test. Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between SBS values obtained for different surface treatments and CAD-CAM block types ( P < .001). Among the CAD-CAM materials, the highest SBS was reported in the HF + S group for Vita Enamic. Although IPS e.max CAD, Vita Suprinity, and Vita Enamic showed higher bond strength when treated with HF + S, Lava Ultimate has the highest bond strength value when treated with SB + S. Conclusions: The bond strength of CAD-CAM materials was influenced by surface treatment. Additionally, silanization significantly improved the bond strength of all materials except Lava Ultimate.

Download Full-text

The Influence of Surface Treatments on Resin Bond Strength to Zirconia

Current Dentistry ◽

10.2174/2542579x02666191218123853 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 29-35

Author(s):

Ulysses Lenz ◽

Rodrigo Alessandretti ◽

Alvaro Della Bona

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Structural Reliability ◽

Failure Modes ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Substantial Impact ◽

Microtensile Testing ◽

Cement System

Background: It’s shown that the clinical success of ceramic restorations much depends on the quality and durability of the bond to ceramic. For zirconia-based ceramics (Y-TZP), the surface treatment has a substantial impact on bond strength. Therefore, the bond strength evaluation of Y-TZP surface treatments is a requirement for predicting the clinical performance of such restorations. Objective: Evaluating the resin bond strength to Y-TZP after different surface treatments. Methods: Monolithic Y-TZP (Zenostar Zr Translucent, Wieland Dental, Rosbach vor der Höhe, Germany) blocks were bonded to resin composite blocks using a resin-based cement system after two Y-TZP surface treatments: APA- airborne particle abrasion with alumina particles; and CJ- silicatization (Cojet sand, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). A silane coupling agent and an adhesive system were applied to the treated Y-TZP surfaces and resin composite blocks were cemented (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and light activated from all sides. These structures were cut to obtain bar-shaped specimens (n=30), which were stored in 37ºC distilled water for 7 days before microtensile testing. Specimens were loaded to failure under tension using a universal testing machine. Data was statistically analyzed using Students t test (α=0.05) and Weibull distribution. Failure modes were evaluated using optical (OM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: Mean bond strength values (CJ= 25.7±8.2 MPa; APA= 22.0±6.3 MPa) were statistically similar (p>0.05). No difference was found for the characteristic strengths (σ0) and for Weibull moduli (m) since the confidence intervals (95% CI) overlapped. The bond strength values for a 5% failure probability (σ5%) were 12.4 (CJ) and 11.5 (APA). All fractures were due to cohesive failure within the adhesive cement system. Conclusion: Both Y-TZP surface treatments (CJ and APA) produced similar structural reliability and short-term bond strength to a resin cement system.

Download Full-text