scholarly journals Effect of Surface Pretreatments on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Lithium-Disilicate Ceramic Repaired with Composite Resin

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Claudia Ramos Colares ◽  
Jiovanne Rabelo Neri ◽  
Andre Mattos Brito de Souza ◽  
Karina Matthes de Freitas Pontes ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Pretreatment ◽  
Oxide Particles

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ceramic surface treatments and silane drying temperature on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of a resin composite to a lithium disilicate ceramic. Twenty blocks (7x7x5 mm) of lithium disilicate-based hotpressed ceramic were fabricated and randomly divided into 4 groups: G1: acid etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and drying silane with room-temperature air; G2: acid etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and drying silane with 45 ± 5 °C warm air; G3: airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and drying silane with 45 ± 5 °C warm air; G4: airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and drying silane with air at room-temperature. After treatments, an adhesive system (Single Bond 2) was applied, light-cured and direct restorations were built up with a resin composite (Filtek Z250). Each specimen was stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and cut into ceramic-composite beams with 1 mm2 of cross-sectional area for µTBS testing. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (α=0.05). µTBS means (S.D.) in MPa were: G1: 32.14 (7.98), G2: 35.00 (7.77) and G3: 18.36 (6.17). All specimens of G4 failed during the cutting. G1 and G2 presented significantly higher µTBS than G3 (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between G1 and G2 (p>0.05). As far as the bond strength is concerned, surface pretreatment of lithium-disilicate ceramic with hydrofluoric acid and silane application can be used as an alternative to repair ceramic restorations with composite resin, while surface pretreatment with sandblasting should be avoided.

scholarly journals Surface Treatments for Repair of Feldspathic, Leucite - and Lithium Disilicate-Reinforced Glass Ceramics Using Composite Resin

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Alencar Neis ◽  
Nadine Luísa Guimarães Albuquerque ◽  
Ivo de Souza Albuquerque ◽  
Erica Alves Gomes ◽  
Celso Bernardo de Souza-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ceramics ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Dental Ceramics ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Diamond Bur

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a restorative composite repair in three types of dental ceramics: lithium disilicate-reinforced, leucite-reinforced and feldspathic. Twelve blocks were sintered for each type of ceramic (n=3) and stored for 3 months in distilled water at 37 °C. The bonding surface of ceramics was abraded with 600-grit SiC paper. Surface treatments for each ceramic were: GC (control) - none; GDB - diamond bur #30 µm; GHF - hydrofluoric acid (10%); GT- tribochemical silica coating (45-μm size particles). Treatments were followed by cleaning with phosphoric acid 37% for 20 s + silane + adhesive. The composite resin was used as restorative material. After repair, samples were subjected to thermocycled ageing (10,000 cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C for 30 s). Thereafter, the samples were sectioned into 1.0 mm2 sticks and tested for microtensile bond strength with 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were compared by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The superficial wear with diamond bur proved to be suitable for feldspathic porcelain and for leucite-reinforced glass ceramic while hydrofluoric acid-etching is indicated for repairs in lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic; tribochemical silica coating is applicable to leucite-reinforced ceramic. Predominance of adhesive failures was observed (>85% in all groups). In conclusion, the success of surface treatments depends on the type of ceramic to be repaired.

scholarly journals Comparison of Silane Heat Treatment by Laser and Various Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin/Lithium Disilicate

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (24) ◽  
pp. 7808
Author(s):  
Goknil Ergun-Kunt ◽  
Rafat Sasany ◽  
Mehmet Faruk Koca ◽  
Mutlu Özcan
Keyword(s):  
Heat Treatment ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Composite Ceramic ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength

In the current study, we evaluated the effects of heat treatment (by Er:YAG or furnace) and various surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of silanized lithium disilicate ceramic. Seventy lithium disilicate (IPS e. max Press; Ivoclar Vivadent) and composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram; Ivoclar Vivadent) blocks were made and distributed into seven groups (n = 10) at random: S: silanization alone; ALS: airborne particle abrasion (APA) and silanization; SC: APA modified with silica and silanization; SHT1: silanization and heat treatment by Er:YAG; SHT2: silanization and heat treatment performed in the furnace (100 °C, 1 min); HF: etching with HF; and HFS: etching with HF and silanization. Every ceramic specimen was cemented to a composite resin block after surface treatment. Cemented specimens were embedded into acrylic resin and were tested with the μTBS test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane T2 tests (α = 0.05). The SHT1 group had the highest bond of strength compared to the other groups (27.46 MPa). The ALS group had the lowest strength of the groups (15.56 MPa). Between SHT2 and HFS (p = 1), the comparison of the mean µTBS values showed no significant differences. It was concluded that silane heat treatment increased the resin composite–ceramic bond strength; however, within the terms of μTBS, the Er:YAG laser treatment was more successful than other surface treatment applications.

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos José Soares ◽  
Marcelo Giannini ◽  
Marcelo Tavares de Oliveira ◽  
Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini Paulillo ◽  
Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Bonded Interface ◽  
Luting Composite ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments on composite resin on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. Two laboratory composites for indirect restorations, Solidex and Targis, and a conventional composite, Filtek Z250, were tested. Forty-eight composite resin blocks (5.0 x 5.0 x 5.0mm) were incrementally manufactured, which were randomly divided into six groups, according to the surface treatments: 1- control, 600-grit SiC paper (C); 2- silane priming (SI); 3- sandblasting with 50 mm Al2O3 for 10s (SA); 4- etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s (HF); 5- HF + SI; 6 - SA + SI. Composite blocks submitted to similar surface treatments were bonded together with the resin adhesive Single Bond and Rely X luting composite. A 500-g load was applied for 5 minutes and the samples were light-cured for 40s. The bonded blocks were serially sectioned into 3 slabs with 0.9mm of thickness perpendicularly to the bonded interface (n = 12). Slabs were trimmed to a dumbbell shape and tested in tension at 0.5mm/min. For all composites tested, the application of a silane primer after sandblasting provided the highest bond strength means.

Effect of Silanization on Microtensile Bond Strength of Different Resin Cements to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Parise Gré ◽  
Renan C de Ré Silveira ◽  
Shizuma Shibata ◽  
Carlo TR Lago ◽  
Luiz CC Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Silane Coupling ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement

ABSTRACT Aim This study evaluated the influence of a silane-coupling agent on the bond strength of a self-adhesive cement and a conventional resin cement to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Materials and methods A total of eight ceramic blocks were fabricated and divided into four groups (n = 2). In groups 1 and 3, ceramic surfaces were etched with hydrofluoric acid 10% for 20 seconds, rinsed for 30 seconds, and air-dried. One layer of a silane agent was applied onto all ceramic specimens and air-dried for 30 seconds. In groups 2 and 4, ceramic surfaces were etched with hydrofluoric acid, rinsed, and air-dried without application of the silane-coupling agent. The ceramic blocks were bonded to a block of composite with a self-adhesive resin cement or with a conventional resin cement, according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C, the specimens were sectioned perpendicular to the bonding interface area to obtain beams with a bonding area of 0.8 mm2 and submitted to a microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were statistically analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and the Games–Howell post hoc test (p = 0.05). Fractured specimens were examined under optical microscopy at 40× magnification. Results Silanization resulted in higher microtensile bond strength compared to groups without silane. No significant differences were found between the conventional resin cement and the self-adhesive resin cement with silane agent (p = 0.983), and without silane agent (p = 0.877). Conclusion Silanization appears to be crucial for resin bonding to a lithium disilicate-based ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used. The self-adhesive resin cement performed as well as the conventional resin cement. Clinical significance Applying one layer of a silane-coupling agent after etching the ceramic surface with hydrofluoric acid 10% enhanced the bond strength between resin cements and a glass ceramic. How to cite this article Gré CP, de Ré Silveira RC, Shibata S, Lago CTR, Vieira LCC. Effect of Silanization on Microtensile Bond Strength of Different Resin Cements to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(2):149-153.

Effects of Surface Treatments, Thermocycling, and Cyclic Loading on the Bond Strength of a Resin Cement Bonded to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
GB Guarda ◽  
AB Correr ◽  
LS Gonçalves ◽  
AR Costa ◽  
GA Borges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Blocks

SUMMARY Objectives The aim of this present study was to investigate the effect of two surface treatments, fatigue and thermocycling, on the microtensile bond strength of a newly introduced lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) and a dual-cured resin cement. Methods A total of 18 ceramic blocks (10 mm long × 7 mm wide × 3.0 mm thick) were fabricated and divided into six groups (n=3): groups 1, 2, and 3—air particle abraded for five seconds with 50-μm aluminum oxide particles; groups 4, 5, and 6—acid etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds. A silane coupling agent was applied onto all specimens and allowed to dry for five seconds, and the ceramic blocks were bonded to a block of composite Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) with RelyX ARC (3M ESPE) resin cement and placed under a 500-g static load for two minutes. The cement excess was removed with a disposable microbrush, and four periods of light activation for 40 seconds each were performed at right angles using an LED curing unit (UltraLume LED 5, Ultradent) with a final 40 second light exposure from the top surface. All of the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Groups 2 and 5 were submitted to 3,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C, and groups 3 and 6 were submitted to a fatigue test of 100,000 cycles at 2 Hz. Specimens were sectioned perpendicular to the bonding area to obtain beams with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm2 (30 beams per group) and submitted to a microtensile bond strength test in a testing machine (EZ Test) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test (p≤0.05). Results The microtensile bond strength values (MPa) were 26.9 ± 6.9, 22.2 ± 7.8, and 21.2 ± 9.1 for groups 1–3 and 35.0 ± 9.6, 24.3 ± 8.9, and 23.9 ± 6.3 for groups 4–6. For the control group, fatigue testing and thermocycling produced a predominance of adhesive failures. Fatigue and thermocycling significantly decreased the microtensile bond strength for both ceramic surface treatments when compared with the control groups. Etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid significantly increased the microtensile bond strength for the control group.

scholarly journals Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Marques de Melo ◽  
Luiz Felipe Valandro ◽  
Marco Antonio Bottino
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Microtensile Testing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Blocks ◽  
Bond Strengths

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a repair composite resin to a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Omega 900, VITA) submitted to two surface conditionings methods: 1) etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane application or 2) tribochemical silica coating. The null hypothesis is that both surface treatments can generate similar bond strengths. Ten ceramic blocks (6x6x6 mm) were fabricated and randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=5), according to the conditioning method: G1- 10% hydrofluoric acid application for 2 min plus rinsing and drying, followed by silane application for 30 s; G2- airborne particle abrasion with 30 µm silica oxide particles (CoJet-Sand) for 20 s using a chairside air-abrasion device (CoJet System), followed by silane application for 5 min. Single Bond adhesive system was applied to the surfaces and light cured (40 s). Z-250 composite resin was placed incrementally on the treated ceramic surface to build a 6x6x6 mm block. Bar specimens with an adhesive area of approximately 1 ± 0.1 mm² were obtained from the composite-ceramic blocks (6 per block and 30 per group) for microtensile testing. No statistically significant difference was observed between G1 (10.19 ± 3.1 MPa) and G2 (10.17 ± 3.1 MPa) (p=0.982) (Student's t test; á = 0.05). The null hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. In conclusion, both surface conditioning methods provided similar microtensile bond strengths between the repair composite resin and the ceramic. Further studies using long-term aging procedures should be conducted.

scholarly journals The Effect of Different Disinfecting Agents on Bond Strength of Resin Composites

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohammed Hassan ◽  
Ahmed Ali Goda ◽  
Kusai Baroudi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Sodium Hypochlorite ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Surface Pretreatment ◽  
Dentin Surface ◽  
Post Hoc

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different disinfectant agents on bond strength of two types of resin composite materials.Methods. A total of 80 sound posterior teeth were used. They were divided into four groups(n=20)according to the dentin surface pretreatment (no treatment, chlorhexidine gluconate 2%, sodium hypochlorite 4%, and EDTA 19%). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to the type of adhesive (prime and bond 2.1 and Adper easy one). Each subgroup was further divided into two subgroups according to the type of resin composite (TPH spectrum and Tetric EvoCeram). Shear bond strength between dentin and resin composite was measured using Universal Testing Machine. Data collected were statistically analyzed byt-test and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’spost hoctest.Results. It was found that dentin treated with EDTA recorded the highest shear bond strength values followed by sodium hypochlorite and then chlorhexidine groups while the control group showed the lowest shear bond strength.Conclusions. The surface treatment of dentin before bonding application has a great effect on shear bond strength between resin composite and dentin surface.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document