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

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.

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.

scholarly journals Heat Treatment of Pre-hydrolyzed Silane Increases Adhesion of Phosphate Monomer-based Resin Cement to Glass Ceramic

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Furtado de Carvalho ◽  
Caroline Cotes ◽  
Estevão Tomomitsu Kimpara ◽  
Fabíola Pessoa Pereira Leite
Keyword(s):  
Heat Treatment ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Hot Air ◽  
Ceramic Blocks

This study evaluated the influence of different forms of heat treatment on a pre-hydrolyzed silane to improve the adhesion of phosphate monomer-based (MDP) resin cement to glass ceramic. Resin and feldspathic ceramic blocks (n=48, n=6 for bond test, n=2 for microscopy) were randomly divided into 6 groups and subject to surface treatments: G1: Hydrofluoric acid (HF) 9.6% for 20 s + Silane + MDP resin cement (Panavia F); G2: HF 9.6% for 20 s + Silane + Heat Treatment (oven) + Panavia F; G3: Silane + Heat Treatment (oven) + Panavia F; G4: HF 9.6% for 20 s + Silane + Heat Treatment (hot air) + Panavia F; G5: Silane + Heat Treatment (hot air) + Panavia F; G6: Silane + Panavia F. Microtensile bond strength (MTBS) test was performed using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). After debonding, the substrate and adherent surfaces were analyzed using stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM) to categorize the failure types. Data were analyzed statistically using two-way test ANOVA and Tukey's test (=0.05). Heat treatment of the silane containing MDP, with prior etching with HF (G2: 13.15±0.89a; G4: 12.58±1.03a) presented significantly higher bond strength values than the control group (G1: 9.16±0.64b). The groups without prior etching (G3: 10.47±0.70b; G5: 9.47±0.32b) showed statistically similar bond strength values between them and the control group (G1). The silane application without prior etching and heat treatment resulted in the lowest mean bond strength (G6: 8.05±0.37c). SEM analysis showed predominantly adhesive failures and EDS analysis showed common elements of spectra (Si, Na, Al, K, O, C) characterizing the microstructure of the glass-ceramic studied. Heat treatment of the pre-hydrolyzed silane containing MDP in an oven at 100 °C for 2 min or with hot air application at 50±5 ºC for 1 min, was effective in increasing the bond strength values between the ceramic and resin cement containing MDP.

scholarly journals Adhesion to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Etched with Hydrofluoric Acid at Distinct Concentrations

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 492-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catina Prochnow ◽  
Andressa Borin Venturini ◽  
Rafaella Grasel ◽  
André Gundel ◽  
Marco Cícero Bottino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Contact Angle ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Ceramic Blocks ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Micro Morphology ◽  
And Storage

Abstract This study evaluated the effect of different hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentrations on the bond strength between a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic and a resin cement. Eighty ceramic-blocks (12×7×2 mm) of IPS e.Max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) were produced and randomly assigned to 8 groups, considering 2 study factors: HF concentration in 4 levels, i.e., 1% (HF1), 3% (HF3), 5% (HF5), and 10% (HF10), and storage in 2 levels, i.e., baseline (tests were performed 24 h after cementation), and aged (storage for 150 days + 12,000 thermal-cycles at 5°C and 55°C). Acid etching (20 s) was performed, followed by washing, drying, and silanization. Four resin cement cylinders (ϕ= 0.96 mm) were built-up from starch matrices on each ceramic sample (n= 40). Additional ceramic samples were etched and analyzed for contact angle, micro-morphology, and roughness. In baseline condition (without aging), the HF3, HF5, and HF10 groups showed similar bond strength values (13.9 - 15.9 MPa), and HF1 (11.2 MPa) presented lower values than HF5, being that statistically different (p= 0.012). After aging, all the mean bond strengths statistically decreased, being that HF3, HF5, and HF10 (7.8 - 11 MPa) were similar and higher than HF1 (1.8 MPa) (p= 0.0001). For contact angle, HF3, HF5, and HF10 presented similar values (7.8 - 10.4°), lower than HF1 and CTRL groups. HF5 and HF10 presented rougher surfaces than other conditions. For better bond strength results, the tested ceramic may be etched by HF acid in concentrations of 3%, 5%, and 10%.

Effect of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentration and Etching Time on Bond Strength to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 606-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Puppin-Rontani ◽  
D Sundfeld ◽  
AR Costa ◽  
AB Correr ◽  
RM Puppin-Rontani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Surface Characterization ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Etching Time ◽  
Failure Data ◽  
Ceramic Blocks

SUMMARY The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different concentrations of hydrofluoric acid (HF) associated with varied etching times on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of a resin cement to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Two hundred seventy-five ceramic blocks (IPS e.max Press [EMX], Ivoclar Vivadent), measuring 8 mm × 3 mm thickness, were randomly distributed into five groups according to the HF concentrations (n=50): 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10%. Further random distribution into subgroups was performed according to the following etching times (n=10): 20, 40, 60, 120, and 20 + 20 seconds. After etching, all blocks were treated with a silane coupling agent followed by a thin layer of an unfilled resin. Three resin cement cylinders (∅︀=1 mm) were made on each EMX surface, which was then stored in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours before testing. The μSBS was in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. Data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance, and multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey post hoc test (α=0.05). One representative EMX sample was etched according to the description of each subgroup and evaluated using scanning electron microscopy for surface characterization. The HF concentrations of 5%, 7.5%, and 10% provided significantly higher μSBS values than 1% and 2.5% (p<0.05), regardless of the etching times. For 1% and 2.5% HF, the etching times from 40 to 120 seconds increased the μSBS values compared with 20 seconds (p<0.05), but etching periods did not differ within the 5%, 7.5%, and 10% HF groups (p>0.05). The effect of re-etching was more evident for 1% and 2.5% HF (p<0.05). Different HF concentrations/etching times directly influenced the bond strength and surface morphology of EMX.

scholarly journals Resin Bonding to a Hybrid Ceramic: Effects of Surface Treatments and Aging

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Campos ◽  
CS Almeida ◽  
MP Rippe ◽  
RM de Melo ◽  
LF Valandro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Cont Group ◽  
Hybrid Ceramic

SUMMARY The aim of this study was to verify the effects of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength between resin cement and a hybrid ceramic. Thirty-two hybrid ceramic slices (8 × 10 × 3 mm) were produced and allocated among four groups according to the surface treatment: Cont = no treatment, HA = 10% hydrofluoric acid applied for 60 seconds, PA = 37% phosphoric acid applied for 60 seconds and CJ = air abrasion with silica particle coated alumina (Cojet Sand, 3M ESPE, 30 μm/2.8 bar). As a control group, eight blocks of feldspathic ceramic (8 × 10 × 3 mm) were etched by hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds (VMII). After the surface treatments, the ceramic slices were silanized (except the Cont group) and adhesively cemented to composite resin blocks (8 × 10 × 3 mm ) with a load of 750 g (polymerized for 40 seconds each side). The cemented blocks were cut into beams (bonded surface area of ∼1 mm2). Half of the beams were aged (thermocycling of 5°C-55°C/6000 cycles + water storage at 37°C/60 days), and the other half were tested immediately after being cut. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (non-aged groups) and by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (aged groups; α=0.05%). The mode of failure was classified by stereomicroscopy. The surface treatment significantly affected the bond strength in each set of groups: non-aged (p=0.001) and aged (p=0.001). Before being aged, samples in the CJ, HA, and PA groups achieved the highest bond strength values. However, after being aged, only those in the HA group remained with the highest bond strength values. Adhesive failure was found most often. In conclusion, hydrofluoric acid etching should be used for surface conditioning of the studied hybrid ceramic.

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.

scholarly journals The Effect of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentration and Heat on the Bonding to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 727-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Sundfeld ◽  
Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho ◽  
Núbia Inocêncya Pavesi Pini ◽  
Ana Rosa Costa ◽  
Renato Herman Sundfeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glassy Matrix ◽  
Etching Time ◽  
Sem Images ◽  
Matrix Removal ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentration and previous heat treatment (PHT) on the surface morphology and micro-shear bond strength (mSBS) of a lithium disilicate glass ceramic (EMX) to resin cement. One hundred four EMX specimens were randomly assigned to two groups (n=52) according to the HF concentration: 5% and 10%. A new random distribution was made according to the PHTs (n=13): control (no PHT); previously heated HF (70 °C); previously heated EMX surface (85 °C); the combination of heated HF + heated EMX surface. The etching time was set at 20 s. All EMX blocks were silanated and received a thin layer of an unfilled resin. Five resin cement cylinders were made on each EMX surface using Tygon tubes as matrices, and then stored for 24 h at 37 °C. One random etched EMX sample from each group was analyzed using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM). The data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey post hoc test (a=0.05). For the control groups, 5% HF showed statistically lower mSBS values when compared to 10% HF (p<0.05). PHT increased the mSBS values for 5% HF, yielding statistically similar results to non-PHT 10% HF (p<0.05). FE-SEM images showed increased glassy matrix removal when PHT was applied to HF 5%, but not to the same degree as for 10% HF. PHT has the potential to improve the bond strength of 5% HF concentration on lithium disilicate glass ceramic.

scholarly journals Bond Strength Between Resin Cement to High-Translucency Zirconia Following Sandblasting And Non-Thermal Plasma Treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Oliveira da Silva ◽  
Tabata Prado Sato ◽  
Marina Bacelar Silva ◽  
Letícia Grilo de Souza ◽  
Eduardo Shigueyuki Uemura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Thermal Plasma ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Zirconia Ceramic ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Non Thermal Plasma ◽  
Silica Oxide

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the bond strength of High-Translucency zirconia (HT) and lithium disilicate dental ceramics, under different surface treatments. Material And Methods: For this, ceramics were divided into groups: Control Group (C) (n = 5), lithium disilicate sheets, conditioned with 10% hydrofluoric acid, followed by application of 37% phosphoric acid, silane and universal adhesive application; Group HTAI (n = 5), HT zirconia sheets were blasted with silica oxide, followed by the application of universal adhesive; Group HTPAI (n = 5), HT zirconia sheets were blasted with silica oxide, followed by the application of non-thermal plasma and universal adhesive and the HTP Group (n = 5), HT zirconia received only the application of non-thermal argon plasma. Subsequently, the specimens of each group were subjected to a cementation process with resin cement, obtaining cylinders. After 24 h of storage, in distilled water, at 37°C, the specimens were subjected to a mechanical micro-shear test. The data obtained were submitted to ANOVA One-way followed by the Tukey test (5%). Results: The HTP Group was excluded from the statistical analysis, as adhesions failed within the storage period. In addition, it was not possible to verify a statistical difference between the control group C and the experimental groups HTAI and HTPAI. Conclusion: The results showed that the applicability of high translucency zirconia can potentially be compared to the lithium disilicate bond strength, when submitted to the same surface treatments, except for the plasma application, which alone was not effective. KEYWORDS Lithium disilicate; Nonthermal plasma; Zirconia ceramic.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document