scholarly journals Comparison of Silane Heat Treatment by Laser and Various Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin/Lithium Disilicate

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (24) ◽  
pp. 7808
Author(s):  
Goknil Ergun-Kunt ◽  
Rafat Sasany ◽  
Mehmet Faruk Koca ◽  
Mutlu Özcan
Keyword(s):  
Heat Treatment ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Composite Ceramic ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength

In the current study, we evaluated the effects of heat treatment (by Er:YAG or furnace) and various surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of silanized lithium disilicate ceramic. Seventy lithium disilicate (IPS e. max Press; Ivoclar Vivadent) and composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram; Ivoclar Vivadent) blocks were made and distributed into seven groups (n = 10) at random: S: silanization alone; ALS: airborne particle abrasion (APA) and silanization; SC: APA modified with silica and silanization; SHT1: silanization and heat treatment by Er:YAG; SHT2: silanization and heat treatment performed in the furnace (100 °C, 1 min); HF: etching with HF; and HFS: etching with HF and silanization. Every ceramic specimen was cemented to a composite resin block after surface treatment. Cemented specimens were embedded into acrylic resin and were tested with the μTBS test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane T2 tests (α = 0.05). The SHT1 group had the highest bond of strength compared to the other groups (27.46 MPa). The ALS group had the lowest strength of the groups (15.56 MPa). Between SHT2 and HFS (p = 1), the comparison of the mean µTBS values showed no significant differences. It was concluded that silane heat treatment increased the resin composite–ceramic bond strength; however, within the terms of μTBS, the Er:YAG laser treatment was more successful than other surface treatment applications.

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Pretreatments on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Lithium-Disilicate Ceramic Repaired with Composite Resin

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Claudia Ramos Colares ◽  
Jiovanne Rabelo Neri ◽  
Andre Mattos Brito de Souza ◽  
Karina Matthes de Freitas Pontes ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Pretreatment ◽  
Oxide Particles

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ceramic surface treatments and silane drying temperature on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of a resin composite to a lithium disilicate ceramic. Twenty blocks (7x7x5 mm) of lithium disilicate-based hotpressed ceramic were fabricated and randomly divided into 4 groups: G1: acid etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and drying silane with room-temperature air; G2: acid etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and drying silane with 45 ± 5 °C warm air; G3: airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and drying silane with 45 ± 5 °C warm air; G4: airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and drying silane with air at room-temperature. After treatments, an adhesive system (Single Bond 2) was applied, light-cured and direct restorations were built up with a resin composite (Filtek Z250). Each specimen was stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and cut into ceramic-composite beams with 1 mm2 of cross-sectional area for µTBS testing. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (α=0.05). µTBS means (S.D.) in MPa were: G1: 32.14 (7.98), G2: 35.00 (7.77) and G3: 18.36 (6.17). All specimens of G4 failed during the cutting. G1 and G2 presented significantly higher µTBS than G3 (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between G1 and G2 (p>0.05). As far as the bond strength is concerned, surface pretreatment of lithium-disilicate ceramic with hydrofluoric acid and silane application can be used as an alternative to repair ceramic restorations with composite resin, while surface pretreatment with sandblasting should be avoided.

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.

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 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 Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Palasuk ◽  
JA Platt ◽  
SD Cho ◽  
JA Levon ◽  
DT Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Acid Treatment ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Control Failure

SUMMARY Objective: This laboratory study compared the repaired microtensile bond strengths of aged silorane resin composite using different surface treatments and either silorane or methacrylate resin composite. Methods: One hundred eight silorane resin composite blocks (Filtek LS) were fabricated and aged by thermocycling between 8°C and 48°C (5000 cycles). A control (solid resin composite) and four surface treatment groups (no treatment, acid treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and diamond bur abrasion) were tested (N=12 blocks, 108 beams/group). Each treatment group was randomly divided in half and repaired with either silorane resin composite (LS adhesive) or methacrylate resin composite (Filtek Z250/Single Bond Plus). After 24 hours in 37°C distilled water, microtensile bond strength testing was performed using a non-trimming technique. Surface topography after surface treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure mode was examined using optical microscopy (50×). Results: Weibull-distribution survival analysis revealed that aluminum oxide sandblasting followed by silorane or methacrylate resin composite and acid treatment with methacrylate resin composite provided insignificant differences from the control (p&gt;0.05). All other groups were significantly lower than the control. Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups. Conclusion: Aluminum oxide sandblasting produced microtensile bond strength not different from the cohesive strength of silorane resin composite. After aluminum oxide sandblasting, aged silorane resin composite can be repaired with either silorane resin composite with LS system adhesive or methacrylate resin composite with methacrylate dental adhesive.

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

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.

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 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 Influence of Different Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Using the Intrinsic Characterization Technique

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 635-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
DC Barcellos ◽  
MT Palazon ◽  
CR Pucci ◽  
LH Aizawa ◽  
SEP Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
The Other ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Intrinsic Characterization ◽  
Color Pigment

SUMMARY Objective: This study evaluated the influence of different surface treatments on the resin bond strength/light-cured characterizing materials (LCCMs), using the intrinsic characterization technique. The intrinsic technique is characterized by the use of LCCMs between the increments of resin composite (resin/thin film of LCCM/external layer of resin covering the LCCM). Materials and Methods: Using a silicone matrix, 240 blocks of composite (Z350/3M ESPE) were fabricated. The surfaces received different surface treatments, totaling four groups (n=60): Group C (control group), no surface treatment was used; Group PA, 37% phosphoric acid for one minute and washing the surface for two minutes; Group RD, roughening with diamond tip; and Group AO, aluminum oxide. Each group was divided into four subgroups (n=15), according to the LCCMs used: Subgroup WT, White Tetric Color pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; Subgroup BT, Black Tetric Color pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; Subgroup WK, White Kolor Plus pigment (Kerr) LCCM; Subgroup BK, Brown Kolor Plus pigment (Kerr) LCCM. All materials were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. After this, block composites were fabricated over the LCCMs. Specimens were sectioned and submitted to microtensile testing to evaluate the bond strength at the interface. Data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (surface treatment and LCCMs) and Tukey tests. Results: ANOVA presented a value of p&lt;0.05. The mean values (±SD) for the factor surface treatment were as follows: Group C, 30.05 MPa (±5.88)a; Group PA, 23.46 MPa (±5.45)b; Group RD, 21.39 MPa (±6.36)b; Group AO, 15.05 MPa (±4.57)c. Groups followed by the same letters do not present significant statistical differences. The control group presented significantly higher bond strength values than the other groups. The group that received surface treatment with aluminum oxide presented significantly lower bond strength values than the other groups. Conclusion: Surface treatments of composite with phosphoric acid, diamond tip, and aluminum oxide significantly diminished the bond strength between composite and the LCCMs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document