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

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

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/15-057-l ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 171-178 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Applied Oral Science ◽

10.1590/s1678-77572004000100009 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 45-50 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

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.

Download Full-text

Simplified Surface Treatments for Ceramic Cementation: Use of Universal Adhesive and Self-Etching Ceramic Primer

International Journal of Biomaterials ◽

10.1155/2018/2598073 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Heloísa A. B. Guimarães ◽

Paula C. Cardoso ◽

Rafael A. Decurcio ◽

Lúcio J. E. Monteiro ◽

Letícia N. de Almeida ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Hydrofluoric Acid ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Strength Test ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Test Machine ◽

Universal Adhesive ◽

Significant Difference

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of resin cement and lithium disilicate ceramic after various surface treatments of the ceramic. Sixty blocks of ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) were obtained. After cleaning, they were placed in polyvinyl chloride tubes with acrylic resin. The blocks were divided into six groups (n=10) depending on surface treatment: H/S/A - 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane + Adhesive, H/S -10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane, H/S/UA - 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane + Universal Adhesive, H/UA- 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Universal Adhesive, MBEP/A - Monobond Etch & Prime + Adhesive, and MBEP - Monobond Etch & Prime. The light-cured resin cement (Variolink Esthetic LC, Ivoclar Vivadent) was inserted in a mold placed over the treated area of the ceramics and photocured with an LED for 20 s to produce cylinders (3 mm x 3 mm). The samples were subjected to a shear bond strength test in a universal test machine (Instron 5965) by 0.5 mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey tests showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p<0.05). The results of the shear strength test were H/S/A (9.61±2.50)A, H/S (10.22±3.28)A, H/S/UA (7.39±2.02)ABC, H/UA (4.28±1.32)C, MBEP/A (9.01±1.97)AB, and MBEP (6.18±2.75)BC. The H/S group showed cohesive failures, and the H/UA group was the only one that presented adhesive failures. The conventional treatment with hydrofluoric acid and silane showed the best bond strength. The use of a new ceramic primer associated with adhesive bonding obtained similar results to conventional surface treatment, being a satisfactory alternative to replace the use of hydrofluoric acid.

Download Full-text

The effect of surface treatment and thermocycling on the shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneering material cemented with different luting cements

Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences ◽

10.20396/bjos.v18i0.8655468 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 18 ◽

pp. e191581

Author(s):

Fawaz Alqahtani ◽

Mohammed Alkhurays

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Hydrofluoric Acid ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Ceramic Surface ◽

Resin Cements ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Acid Etch

Aim: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of different surface treatment and thermocycling on the shear bond strength (SBS) of different dual-/light-cure cements bonding porcelain laminate veneers (PLV). Methods: One hundred and twenty A2 shade lithium disilicate discs were divided into three groups based on the resin cement used and on the pretreatment received and then divided into two subgroups: thermocycling and control. The surface treatment were either micro-etched with aluminium trioxide and 10% hydrofluoric acid or etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid only before cementation. Three dual-cure (Variolink Esthetic (I), RelyX Ultimate (II), and RelyX Unicem (III)) and three light-cure (Variolink Veneer (IV), Variolink Esthetic (V), RelyX Veneer (VI)) resin cements were used for cementation. The SBS of the samples was evaluated and analysed using three -way ANOVA with statistical significant set at α=0.05. Results: For all resin cements tested with different surface treatments, there was a statistically significant difference within resin cements per surface treatment (p<0.05). The shear bond strength in the micro-etch group was significant higher than the acid-etch group (p<0.05) There was statistically significant interaction observed between the surface treatment and thermocycling (p<0.05) as well as the cement and thermocycling(p<0.05). It was observed that the reduction in shear bond strength after thermocycling was more pronounced in the acid etch subgroup as compared to the microetch subgroup. However, the interaction between the three factors: surface treatments, thermocycling and resin cements did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between and within groups (p=0.087). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it acan be concluded that Dual cure resin cements showed a higher Shear bond strength as compared to light cure resin cements. Thermal cycling significantly decreased the shear bond strength for both ceramic surface treatments. After thermocycling, the specimens with 10% HF surface treatment showed lower shear bond strength values when compared to those treated by sandblasting with Al2O3 particles.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/11-076-l ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 38 (2) ◽

pp. 208-217 ◽

Cited By ~ 68

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.

Download Full-text

Effect of Surface Treatment and Resin Cement on Microtensile Bond Strength of Zirconia to Dentin

Key Engineering Materials ◽

10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.602-603.602 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 602-603 ◽

pp. 602-605

Author(s):

Xiao Li Feng ◽

Ruo Yu Liu ◽

Yan Li Zhang ◽

Liang Jiao Chen ◽

Yao Kun Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Acrylic Resin ◽

Silica Coating ◽

Surface Treatments ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Occlusal Plane ◽

Control Group ◽

Microtensile Bond Strength ◽

Relyx Unicem

To evaluate the effect of three surface treatments and two resin cements on microtensile bond strength of zirconia to dentin. Sixty human molars were embedded in acrylic resin and sectioned 3 mm below the occlusal plane. Teeth specimens and sixty zirconia specimens were randomized into 3 groups according to the following surface treatments (n=20): no treatment (control), sandblasting and silane application (SB+SI), sandblasting then silica coating and silane application (SB+SC+SI). In each group, half of the ceramic-tooth assemblies were cemented with PanaviaTM F (Kurary Dental), the rest with RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE). All specimens were cut into microtensile sticks that were loaded in tension until failure. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (α=0.05). The SB+SC+SC group presented higher values than SB+SI and the control group (P<0.05). Bond strength in PanaviaTM F groups were significantly higher than those in RelyX Unicem regardless of the surface treatment (P<0.05). Data indicated that both surface treatment and resin cement have significant effects on bond strength of zirconia to dentin.

Download Full-text

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

Brazilian Dental Science ◽

10.14295/bds.2015.v18i4.1187 ◽

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

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 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