scholarly journals Repair bond strength of aged resin composite using different surface treatments and bonding protocols

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Pydiahnaidu Bandaru ◽  
Nagesh Bolla ◽  
Rupadevi Garlapati ◽  
Sayesh Vemuri ◽  
Yamini Bandaru
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments

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.

The Influence of Surface Treatments on Resin Bond Strength to Zirconia

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35
Author(s):  
Ulysses Lenz ◽  
Rodrigo Alessandretti ◽  
Alvaro Della Bona
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Structural Reliability ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
Microtensile Testing ◽  
Cement System

Background: It’s shown that the clinical success of ceramic restorations much depends on the quality and durability of the bond to ceramic. For zirconia-based ceramics (Y-TZP), the surface treatment has a substantial impact on bond strength. Therefore, the bond strength evaluation of Y-TZP surface treatments is a requirement for predicting the clinical performance of such restorations. Objective: Evaluating the resin bond strength to Y-TZP after different surface treatments. Methods: Monolithic Y-TZP (Zenostar Zr Translucent, Wieland Dental, Rosbach vor der Höhe, Germany) blocks were bonded to resin composite blocks using a resin-based cement system after two Y-TZP surface treatments: APA- airborne particle abrasion with alumina particles; and CJ- silicatization (Cojet sand, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). A silane coupling agent and an adhesive system were applied to the treated Y-TZP surfaces and resin composite blocks were cemented (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and light activated from all sides. These structures were cut to obtain bar-shaped specimens (n=30), which were stored in 37ºC distilled water for 7 days before microtensile testing. Specimens were loaded to failure under tension using a universal testing machine. Data was statistically analyzed using Students t test (α=0.05) and Weibull distribution. Failure modes were evaluated using optical (OM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: Mean bond strength values (CJ= 25.7±8.2 MPa; APA= 22.0±6.3 MPa) were statistically similar (p>0.05). No difference was found for the characteristic strengths (σ0) and for Weibull moduli (m) since the confidence intervals (95% CI) overlapped. The bond strength values for a 5% failure probability (σ5%) were 12.4 (CJ) and 11.5 (APA). All fractures were due to cohesive failure within the adhesive cement system. Conclusion: Both Y-TZP surface treatments (CJ and APA) produced similar structural reliability and short-term bond strength to a resin cement system.

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<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.

Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sinval A. Rodrigues Junior ◽  
Jack L. Ferracane ◽  
Álvaro Della Bona
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Restorative Materials

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatments and Aging in Water on Bond Strength to Zirconia

10.2341/08-12 ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 675-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Lindgren ◽  
J. Smeds ◽  
G. Sjögren
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Yttrium Oxide ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Stabilized Zirconia ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Partially Stabilized Zirconia ◽  
Resin Composite Cement ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Clinical Relevance Air abrasion and pretreatment with a metal primer seem to be an appropriate method for improving the bond strength of RelyX Unicem resin composite cement to hot isostatic pressed yttrium-oxide partially stabilized zirconia.

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>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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document