scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatments on Shear Bond Strength of Polyetheretherketone to Autopolymerizing Resin

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Kosuke Kurahashi ◽  
Takashi Matsuda ◽  
Yuichi Ishida ◽  
Tetsuo Ichikawa
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Adhesive Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Treatment Conditions ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Resin Treatment ◽  
Effect Of Surface

These days, new prosthodontic materials are appearing with the development of digitalization. Among these, the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as the clasp of removable partial dentures has been proposed. The adhesive strength between the PEEK and acrylic resin influences the probability of denture fracture. To investigate the effect of PEEK surface treatments on the shear bond strength to acrylic resin, five surface treatment conditions of PEEK were analyzed: 1. no treatment; 2. ceramic primer application; 3. Al2O3 sandblasting; 4. Rocatec; and 5. Rocatec with ceramic primer application, comparing with a metal primer-treated Co-Cr alloy. Two kinds of autopolymerizing resin (Unifast II and Palapress Vario) were used as bonding materials. The specimens were evaluated to determine the bond strength. Rocatec treatment with ceramic primer application yielded the highest bond strengths (12.71 MPa and 15.32 MPa, respectively, for Unifast II and Palapress Vario). When compared to a metal primer-treated Co-Cr alloy, the bond strength of PEEK to Unifast II was similar, whereas it was about 60% of that to Palapress Vario. Rocatec treatment, combined with ceramic primer, showed the highest bond strength of PEEK to acrylic resin. Treatment of PEEK will enable its use as the clasp of removable dentures and the fixation of PEEK prostheses.

scholarly journals Bond Strength Assessment Between Acrylic Teeth and Acrylic Resin Repairs: Effect of Different Surface Treatments

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
M.T. Muñoz MSc ◽  
E. Reales DDS ◽  
L.H.M. Prates DDS, MSc, PhD ◽  
C.A.M. Volpato DDS, MSc, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Strength Assessment ◽  
Chemical Treatments ◽  
Post Hoc

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength between acrylic resin teeth and autopolymerizing acrylic resin repairs after different surface treatments. Seventy-two upper anterior acrylic resin denture teeth (MFT, Vita, Germany) were selected. Specimens were randomly assigned into six groups (n=12): G1-C, without surface treatment (control); G2-M, methylmetacrylate monomer (Jet, Clássico, Brazil) application; G3-A treatment with methylmetacrylate and metiletilcetone-based bonding agent (Vitacoll, Vita, Germany). The surface of G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA was airborne-particle abraded with aluminum oxide (Polidental, Wilson, Brazil); being repeated the treatments respectively of groups G1-C, G2-M e G3-A. All groups were then repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Jet, Clássico, Brazil). Shear bond strength test was performed using an universal testing machine (Instron 4444). Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s analysis (p<0,05) were used for statistical comparison. The shear bond strengths of groups G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C, G2-M and G3-A. The shear bond strength of Group G3-A were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C and G2-M. In conclution, chemical treatments in combination with bondig agents showed significant improvements in bond strength without aluminum oxide treatment. More significantly, surface treatment with aluminum oxide particles resulted in the highest bond strength values for acrylic resin teeth repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. 

scholarly journals Effects of surface treatment of provisional crowns on the shear bond strength of brackets

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josiane Xavier de Almeida ◽  
Mauren Bitencourt Deprá ◽  
Mariana Marquezan ◽  
Luciana Borges Retamoso ◽  
Orlando Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Surface Roughening ◽  
Bonding Material ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adhesive resistance of metallic brackets bonded to temporary crowns made of acrylic resin after different surface treatments. METHODS: 180 specimens were made of Duralay and randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 30) according to surface treatment and bonding material: G1 - surface roughening with Soflex and bonding with Duralay; G2 - roughening with aluminum oxide blasting and bonding with Duralay; G3 - application of monomer and bonding with Duralay; G4 - roughening with Soflex and bonding with Transbond XT; G5 - roughening with aluminum oxide blasting and bonding with Transbond XT and G6: application of monomer and bonding with Transbond. The results were statistically assessed by ANOVA/Games-Howell. RESULTS: The means (MPa) were: G1= 18.04, G2= 22.64, G3= 22.4, G4= 9.71, G5= 11.23, G6= 9.67. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) ranged between 2 and 3 on G1, G2 and G3 whereas in G4, G5 and G6 it ranged from 0 to 1, showing that only the material affects the pattern of adhesive flaw. CONCLUSION: The surface treatment and the material influenced adhesive resistance of brackets bonded to temporary crowns. Roughening by aluminum blasting increased bond strength when compared to Soflex, in the group bonded with Duralay. The bond strength of Duralay acrylic resin was superior to that of Transbond XT composite resin.

scholarly journals Bond Strength Assessment Between Acrylic Teeth and Acrylic Resin Repairs: Effect of Different Surface Treatments

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
M.T. Muñoz MSc ◽  
E. Reales DDS ◽  
L.H.M. Prates DDS, MSc, PhD ◽  
C.A.M. Volpato DDS, MSc, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Strength Assessment ◽  
Chemical Treatments ◽  
Post Hoc

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength between acrylic resin teeth and autopolymerizing acrylic resin repairs after different surface treatments. Seventy-two upper anterior acrylic resin denture teeth (MFT, Vita, Germany) were selected. Specimens were randomly assigned into six groups (n=12): G1-C, without surface treatment (control); G2-M, methylmetacrylate monomer (Jet, Clássico, Brazil) application; G3-A treatment with methylmetacrylate and metiletilcetone-based bonding agent (Vitacoll, Vita, Germany). The surface of G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA was airborne-particle abraded with aluminum oxide (Polidental, Wilson, Brazil); being repeated the treatments respectively of groups G1-C, G2-M e G3-A. All groups were then repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Jet, Clássico, Brazil). Shear bond strength test was performed using an universal testing machine (Instron 4444). Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s analysis (p<0,05) were used for statistical comparison. The shear bond strengths of groups G4-OA, G5-OAM and G6-OAA were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C, G2-M and G3-A. The shear bond strength of Group G3-A were significantly higher (p<0,05) than that of groups G1-C and G2-M. In conclution, chemical treatments in combination with bondig agents showed significant improvements in bond strength without aluminum oxide treatment. More significantly, surface treatment with aluminum oxide particles resulted in the highest bond strength values for acrylic resin teeth repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. 

The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Micro-shear Bond Strength of a Resin Luting Agent and Four All-ceramic Systems

10.2341/08-87 ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. P. Torres ◽  
G. A. Borges ◽  
A. M. Spohr ◽  
A. A. D. B. Cury ◽  
S. Yadav ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Ceramic Composition ◽  
Luting Agent ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Clinical Relevance The bond strength between ceramics and a resin luting agent is affected by the ceramic surface treatment, which is dependent on the ceramic composition.

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments on push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based cements to fiber posts

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amr M. Elnaghy ◽  
Ayman Mandorah ◽  
Ali H. Hassan ◽  
Alaa Elshazli ◽  
Shaymaa Elsaka
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Glass Fiber ◽  
Calcium Silicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fiber Posts ◽  
Glass Fiber Posts ◽  
Push Out ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Abstract Background To evaluate the effect of surface treatments on the push-out bond strength of Biodentine (BD) and white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) to fiber posts. Methods Two brands of fiber posts were used: Reblida post; RP and RelyX post; RX. Each type of post (n = 80/group) was divided into four groups (n = 20/group) and exposed to surface treatment as follows: Control (no treatment), sandblasting (SB), hydrofluoric acid (HF), and TiF4 4 wt/v%. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 10/subgroup) based on the type of CSCs used as follows: Subgroup A: BD and Subgroup B: WMTA. Push-out bond strength of BD and WMTA to glass fiber posts was assessed. Data were statistically analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. A Weibull analysis was performed on the push-out bond strength data. Results BD showed higher bond strength than WMTA (P < 0.001). The push-out bond strength for posts treated with TiF4 4 wt/v% showed greater bond strength than the other surface treatments (P < 0.05). The BD/RP-TiF4 4 wt/v% showed the greater characteristic bond strength (σ0) (15.93) compared with the other groups. Surface treatments modified the surface topography of glass fiber posts. Conclusions The BD/RP-TiF4 4 wt/v% showed greater bond strength compared with the other groups. The TiF4 4 wt/v% surface treatment enhanced the bond strength of BD and WMTA to glass fiber posts than the other treatments. Surface treatment of fiber post with TiF4 4 wt/v% could be used to improve the bond strength with calcium silicate-based cements.

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatment and Storage Time on Immediate Repair Bond Strength Durability of Methacrylate- and Ormocer-Based Bulk Fill Resin Composites

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 8308
Author(s):  
Farid S. El-Askary ◽  
Sara A. Botros ◽  
Mutlu Özcan
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Storage Time ◽  
Strength Testing ◽  
Repair System ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Oxygen Inhibition ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and storage time on immediate repair bond durability of methacrylate- and ormocer-based bulk fill composites. In total, 265 discs were divided into 32 groups (n = 8/group) according to: (1) Material: X-tra fil and Admira Fusion X-tra; (2) Surface treatment: oxygen inhibition; matrix; Futurabond M+; Silane/Futurabond M+; Admira Bond; Silane/Admira Bond; ceramic repair system; and Silane/Cimara bond; and (3) Storage time: 24 h and 6 months. Each disc received three micro-cylinders from the same material. Specimens were subjected to micro-shear bond strength testing either at 24 h or 6 months. Data were analyzed using ANOVA/Tukey’s test/Student t-test (p = 0.05). All experimental factors had significant effect on bond strength (p < 0.0001). Drop in bond strength was noticed in both materials after six months (p < 0.05), except for Admira Fusion X-tra treated with silane/cimara adhesive (p = 0.860). Both materials showed insignificant values with Admira bond either at 24 h or 6 months (p = 0.275 and p = 0.060, respectively). For other treatments, X-tra fil showed significantly higher values at 24 h and 6 months (p < 0.05). Ceramic repair system can be used to immediately repair both methacrylate- and ormocer-based composites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document