scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of a zirconia-reinforced ceramic to composite resin

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Della Bona ◽  
Márcia Borba ◽  
Paula Benetti ◽  
Dileta Cecchetti
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Oxide Particles ◽  
Statistical Ranking

The objective of this study was to evaluate the tensile (sigmat) and shear bond strength (sigmas) of a glass-infiltrated alumina-based zirconia-reinforced ceramic (IZ - Vita In-Ceram Zirconia) to a composite resin, testing the hypothesis that silica coating (SC - Cojet, 3M-Espe) produces higher bond strength values than other ceramic surface treatments. Specimens were fabricated and tested according to the manufacturers' instructions, and to ISO6872 and ISO11405 specifications. Sixty IZ disk specimens were polished through 1 µm and divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the following surface treatments: HF - 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (Ultradent) for 1 min; SB - sandblasting with 25-µm aluminum oxide particles for 10 s; SC - silica coating for 10 s. Silane (3M-Espe), adhesive (Single Bond, 3M-Espe) and a composite resin cylinder (Z100, 3M-Espe) were applied and polymerized to the treated bonding area (3.5 mm in diameter). Ten specimens from each group (n = 10) were tested for sigmat and ten specimens were tested for sigmas, using a universal testing machine (EMIC DL 2000) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey tests (alpha = 0.05). The mean and standard deviation values (MPa) and statistical groupings for sigmat were: HF - 3.5 ± 1.0a; SB - 7.6 ± 1.2b; and SC - 10.4 ± 1.8c. For sigmas, the values were: HF - 10.4 ± 3.1A; SB - 13.9 ± 3.1B; and SC - 21.6 ± 1.7C (p < 0.05). The groups presented the same statistical ranking of mean values for both test methods. The SC-treated IZ ceramic presented a significant increase in mean bond strength values for both test methods, confirming the study hypothesis.

The Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatments on the Shear Bond Strength of Dental Composite Resin to All-Ceramic Coping Materials

2007 ◽  
Vol 330-332 ◽  
pp. 1365-1368
Author(s):  
W.H. Kim ◽  
H.J. Lee ◽  
Keun Woo Lee ◽  
Kwang Mahn Kim ◽  
Kyoung Nam Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Dental Composite ◽  
Zirconia Ceramic ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Alumina Particles

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of composite resin to 4 different all-ceramic coping materials with 3 different surface treatments after thermocycling and without thermocycling. Three different surface treatments - sandblasting with 50 ㎛ alumina particles (AB); sandblasting with 50 ㎛ alumina particles and acid etching with 4% hydrofluoric acid (AE); sandblasting with 50 ㎛ alumina particles and 30 ㎛ alumina particles with tribochemical silica coating (SI) and silane application - were used on four different all-ceramic; Feldspatic ceramic (Duceram Plus); Lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS Empress2); Alumica ceramic (In-Ceram Alumina); Zirconia ceramic (Zi-Ceram) - substrates. Shear bond strength of restorative composite resin to substrate was tested after thermocycling and without thermocycling (n=10). Each specimen was subjected to a shear load at a crosshead speed of 2 ㎜/min until fracture. Two-way analysis of variance and Duncan multiple comparison test (α =0.05) were used to analyze the bond strength values. There were significant differences in the bond strengths for ceramic types (P<.001), surface treatments (P<.001), and thermocycling (P<.001). The Duncan analysis showed that the Si specimens had significantly higher bonding strengths than other specimens. The bond strength of composite resin decreased after thermocycling.

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 Study of thermocycling effect on the bond strength between an aluminous ceramic and a resin cement

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osvaldo Daniel Andreatta Filho ◽  
Maria Auxiliadora Junho de Araújo ◽  
Marco Antonio Bottino ◽  
Renato Sussumu Nishioka ◽  
Marcia Maciel Menezes
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Adhesive Surface ◽  
Ceramic Blocks

This study evaluated the effect of thermocycling on the bond strength between Procera AllCeram (Nobel-Biocare) and a resin cement (Panavia F, Kuraray CO). Nine ceramic blocks with dimensions of 5x6x6mm were conditioned at one face with Rocatec System (Espe). After, they were luted with Panavia F to composite resin blocks (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray CO). The nine groups formed by ceramic, cement and composite resin were split up obtaining 75 samples with dimensions of 12x1x1mm and adhesive surface presenting 1mm²±0.1mm² of area. The samples were divided into 3 groups (n=25): G1 - 14 days in distilled water at 37ºC; G2 - 6,000 cycles in water (5ºC - 55ºC - 30s); G3 - 12,000 cycles in water (5ºC - 55ºC - 30s). The samples were tested in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey tests. The results indicated that mean values of rupture tension (MPa) of G1 (10.71 ± 3.54) did not differ statistically (p <5%) from G2 (9.01 ± 3.90), however there was statistical difference between G1 and G3 (7.28 ± 3.00). It was concluded that thermocycling significantly reduced the bond strength values when samples were submitted to 12,000 cycles.

scholarly journals Bonding of the Polymer Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) to Human Dentin: Effect of Surface Treatments

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 693-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Furbino Villefort Rocha ◽  
Lilian Costa Anami ◽  
Tiago Moreira Bastos Campos ◽  
Renata Marques de Melo ◽  
Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e Souza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sulfuric Acid ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Chemical Surface ◽  
Human Dentin ◽  
Failure Types

Abstract Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a material suitable for frameworks of fixed dental prostheses. The effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of PEEK bonded to human dentin was evaluated. One hundred PEEK cylinders (3 mm×3 mm) were divided into five groups according to surface treatment: silica coating, sandblasting with 45 μm Al2O3 particles, etching with 98% sulfuric acid for 5, 30 and for 60 s. These cylinders were luted with resin cement onto 50 human molars. First, each tooth was embedded in epoxy resin and the buccal dentin surface was exposed. Then, two delimited dentin areas (Æ:3 mm) per tooth were etched with 35% phosphoric acid and bonded with a two-step self-priming adhesive system. After the luting procedure the specimens were stored in water (24 h/37 °C). Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested using a universal testing machine (crosshead speed 0.5 mm/min; load cell 50 kgf) and failure types were assessed. Stress data (MPa) were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Comparison of the proportions of different failure types was performed using the Bonferroni method (p<0.05). Kruskal-Wallis demonstrated that differences among groups were not significant (p=0.187). Mean SBS were as follows: silica coating, 2.12±1.12 MPa; sandblasting, 2.37±0.86 MPa; sulfuric acid 5 s, 2.28±1.75 MPa; sulfuric acid 30 s, 1.80±0.85 MPa; sulfuric acid 60 s, 1.67±0.94 MPa. Adhesive and mixed failures were predominant in all groups. Both physical and chemical surface treatments produced adhesion between PEEK, resin cement and dentin.

scholarly journals Evaluation of shear bond strength of amalgam restorations repaired with composite resin by different surface treatments

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzan Cangül ◽  
Özkan Adıgüzel ◽  
Begüm Erpaçal ◽  
Mehmet Ünal ◽  
Musa Acartürk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Acid Etch ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

Aim: Repairing amalgam restorations with composite resins is a clinical practice with many advantages. An effective adhesion is achieved between amalgam and composite by applied different surface treatment on amalgam surface. In this study, the effect of adhesive systems applied on amalgam surface on composite-amalgam connection was investigated. Methodology: Standard cavities were opened in 70 acrylic molds that had completed their polymerization and amalgams were placed in these cavities. Seven groups were randomly assigned to different surface treatments on amalgam. In group 1 only roughening with diamond bur , in group 2 acid etch, in group 3 acid application after roughening with diamond bur, in group 4 roughening with diamond bur and silane, in group 5 acid etch and silane, in group 6 roughening with diamond bur and Alloy Primer and finally 7. acid etch and Alloy Primer was applied in the samples. After the application of clearfil universal bond to all groups, composite resins were placed and polymerized. Shear bond strengths were tested with a Universal testing machine. Obtained data were evaluated by one way ANOVA and Tukey B tests. Results: In the statistical evaluation of the groups, the highest shear bond strength between amalgam-composite was seen in the 3rd group where both roughening with diamond bur and acid were applied together, and the lowest shear bond strength was seen in the first group with only roughening with diamond bur. The differences between the groups were statistically significant (p <0.05). Conclusion: The roughening of the amalgam surface affects the shear bond strength between amalgam and composite resin. These results obtained in vitro conditions should be supported with clinical studies.   How to cite this article: Cangül S, Adıgüzel Ö, Erpaçal B, Ünal M, Acartürk M, Satıcı Ö. Evaluation of shear bond strength of amalgam restorations repaired with composite resin by different surface treatments. Int Dent Res 2019;9(3):105-10.   Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

scholarly journals Effect of several repair techniques on the bond strength between composite resin and degraded Y-TZP ceramic

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 377
Author(s):  
Vinícius Felipe Wandscher ◽  
Luana Brondani ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
Renata Marques De Melo
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Cohesive Fracture ◽  
Hydrothermal Degradation

<p><strong>Objective:</strong> To evaluate the bond strength of different repair treatments for composite resin to aged Y-TZP ceramics.  <strong>Material and Methods:</strong> Zirconia blocks were cut into smaller specimens, sintered according to manufacturer’s recommendations (final dimensions of 4×4×3 mm), and randomly allocated into nine groups (n=15) according to the surface treatment and presence/absence of aging of the substrate (subjected to low-temperature degradation - LTD), as follows: without LTD (Control: without treatment; TBS: tribochemical silica coating + silane + adhesive); with LTD (Control-LTD: without treatment; TBS-LTD: TBS with hydrothermal degradation; MoS-LTD: Monobond S + adhesive; MoP-LTD: Monobond Plus + adhesive; MZP-LTD: Metal/Zirconia Primer + adhesive; USB-LTD: Single Bond Universal; AP-LTD: Alloy primer + adhesive). LTD was simulated in an autoclave (134 °C, 2 bar, 5 h). The ceramic blocks were embedded in PVC cylinders with a self-curing acrylic resin; each surface treatment protocol was performed; a composite resin cylinder (Æ: 3.25 mm and height: 3 mm) was then build-up using split metallic matrices. All the specimens were aged (thermocycling + storage in water for 90 days) and subjected to the shear bond strength test using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The failure mode was classified into four types: adhesive, composite resin cohesive fracture, ceramic cohesive fracture, and mixed. The bond strength values were subjected to Mann–Whitney test. <strong>Results:</strong> Only air-abraded samples (TBS and TBS–LTD) survived thermocycling. More than 80% of the samples of the other groups presented pre-test failures. TBS groups presented higher values of bond strength (3.94) compared to TBS-LTD (0.96). The predominant type of failure for the surviving samples were adhesive. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> Air particle abrasion is mandatory to improve the bond strength of the Y-TZP substrate; an aged substrate presents an even more unfavorable scenario for adhesion.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p> Dental prosthesis repair; Hydrothermal degradation; Zirconia; Shear bond strength; Sandblasting.</p><p> </p>

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Osvaldo Daniel Andreatta-Filho ◽  
Vinícius Anéas Rodrigues ◽  
Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges ◽  
Paula Carolina Komori de Carvalho ◽  
Renato Sussumu Nishioka
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Constant Load ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Nickel Chromium ◽  
Microtensile Test ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Oxide Particles

<p class="western" align="justify"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US"><strong>Objective</strong></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">: 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. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US"><strong>Material and Methods:</strong></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US"> 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 (Al</span></span><sub><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">2</span></span></sub><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">O</span></span><sub><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">3</span></span></sub><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">) + 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 mm</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">2</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">. 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 ± 1.93</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">d</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">; Au C: 13.35 ± 2.18</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">c</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">; NiCr P: 23.56 ± 6.5</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">b</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">; NiCr C: 42.6 ± 5.84</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">a</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">; Ti P: 26.17 ± 1.94</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">b</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">; Ti C: 44.30 ± 2.3</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">a</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">. Data were analyzed by variance test (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test, p &lt; 0.05. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US"><strong>Results: </strong></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US">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. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US"><strong>Conclusion:</strong></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-US"> The results denied the hypothesis that the metallic alloys surface treatments do not alter the bond strengths values.</span></span></span></p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document