scholarly journals Comparison Of The Effect Of Surface Conditioning Methods On The Bond Strength Of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate And Hybrid Ceramics To Resin Cement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hatice SEVMEZ ◽  
Handan YILMAZ
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Lithium Silicate ◽  
Surface Conditioning ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: The effect of surface conditioning

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Amaral ◽  
Mutlu Özcan ◽  
Marco Antonio Bottino ◽  
Luiz Felipe Valandro
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Conditioning ◽  
Effect Of Surface

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 920-925 ◽  
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.

Effects of Multipurpose, Universal Adhesives on Resin Bonding to Zirconia Ceramic

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
J-H Kim ◽  
S-Y Chae ◽  
Y Lee ◽  
G-J Han ◽  
B-H Cho
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Artificial Aging ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Zirconia Ceramic ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Surface Conditioning ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Cylinders

SUMMARY This study evaluated the effects of single-bottle, multipurpose, universal adhesives on the bond strength of resin cement to zirconia ceramic. Polished zirconia ceramic (Cercon base) discs were randomly divided into four groups (n=40) according to the applied surface-conditioning agent: Single Bond 2, Single Bond Universal, All-Bond Universal, and Alloy Primer. Cured composite cylinders (Ø 0.8 mm × 1 mm) were cemented to the conditioned zirconia specimens with resin cement (RelyX ARC). The bonded specimens were subjected to a microshear bond-strength test after 24 hours of water storage and after 10,000 cycles of thermocycling. The surface-conditioning agent significantly influenced the bond strength (p<0.05). Single Bond Universal showed the highest initial bond strength (37.7 ± 5.1 MPa), followed by All-Bond Universal (31.3 ± 5.6 MPa), Alloy Primer (26.9 ± 5.1 MPa), and Single Bond 2 (8.5 ± 4.6 MPa). Artificial aging significantly reduced the bond strengths of all the test groups (p<0.05). After 10,000 cycles of thermocycling, All-Bond Universal showed the highest bond-strength value (26.9 ± 6.4 MPa). Regardless of artificial aging, Single Bond Universal and All-Bond Universal showed significantly higher bond strengths than Alloy Primer, a conventional metal primer.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document