Effect of Etching Time and Technique on Bonding to Machinable Glass Ceramic

Sultan Hamood, A. Attia, Mohamed El-Layeh
{"title":"Effect of Etching Time and Technique on Bonding to Machinable Glass Ceramic","authors":"Sultan Hamood, A. Attia, Mohamed El-Layeh","doi":"10.21608/mjd.2021.200347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: the purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the effect of different surface treatment and various etching times on the shear bond strength of machinable glass ceramic using 2 resin cements. Materials and Methods: A total of 64 ceramic samples (10x12x3.5 mm) were fabricated from (IPS e.max CAD) using CAD/CAM technology. Ceramic samples were divided into two main groups (n=32) according to surface treatment: Hydrofluoric acid followed by Monobond N application or Monobond Etch and prime. According to the etching time, either 60 or 120 sec each main group was divided into two subgroups (n=16). Composite resin discs were fabricated (4mm diameter x 3mm thickness) dimensions. Each subgroup was further subdivided into two divisions (n=8) according to type of luting agent used, either adhesive resin cement (Multilink N) or self-adhesive resin cement (G-CEM LinkAce). Bonded specimens were stored in water bath at 37°C for 5 months then exposed to 10,000 thermal cycles. Universal testing machine was used to record the shear bond strength values for each specimen. Failure analysis was performed using a stereomicroscope (10x) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: SBS values ranged between 11.9 and 15.1 MPa in groups treated with HF pluse Monobond N and between 13.9 and 15.8 MPa in groups treated with MEP. ANOVAs test showed statistically significant difference between the two etching agents used for surface treatment as well as luting agent used for the bonding. However, etching time factor had no statistically significant difference. Moreover, the interaction between the factors had no statistically significant difference P (≤0.05). Most of specimens exhibited cohesive and mixed failure mode. Conclusions: MEP showed comparable SBS results to the combination of HF and Monobond N after artificial aging. Etching time had no effect on the SBS results. The adhesive resin cement showed higher SBS values compared to self-adhesive resin cement regardless of the other factors.","PeriodicalId":308616,"journal":{"name":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/mjd.2021.200347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: the purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the effect of different surface treatment and various etching times on the shear bond strength of machinable glass ceramic using 2 resin cements. Materials and Methods: A total of 64 ceramic samples (10x12x3.5 mm) were fabricated from (IPS e.max CAD) using CAD/CAM technology. Ceramic samples were divided into two main groups (n=32) according to surface treatment: Hydrofluoric acid followed by Monobond N application or Monobond Etch and prime. According to the etching time, either 60 or 120 sec each main group was divided into two subgroups (n=16). Composite resin discs were fabricated (4mm diameter x 3mm thickness) dimensions. Each subgroup was further subdivided into two divisions (n=8) according to type of luting agent used, either adhesive resin cement (Multilink N) or self-adhesive resin cement (G-CEM LinkAce). Bonded specimens were stored in water bath at 37°C for 5 months then exposed to 10,000 thermal cycles. Universal testing machine was used to record the shear bond strength values for each specimen. Failure analysis was performed using a stereomicroscope (10x) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: SBS values ranged between 11.9 and 15.1 MPa in groups treated with HF pluse Monobond N and between 13.9 and 15.8 MPa in groups treated with MEP. ANOVAs test showed statistically significant difference between the two etching agents used for surface treatment as well as luting agent used for the bonding. However, etching time factor had no statistically significant difference. Moreover, the interaction between the factors had no statistically significant difference P (≤0.05). Most of specimens exhibited cohesive and mixed failure mode. Conclusions: MEP showed comparable SBS results to the combination of HF and Monobond N after artificial aging. Etching time had no effect on the SBS results. The adhesive resin cement showed higher SBS values compared to self-adhesive resin cement regardless of the other factors.
蚀刻时间和工艺对可加工玻璃陶瓷粘接的影响
目的:研究不同表面处理和不同蚀刻时间对2种树脂胶结物可切削玻璃陶瓷剪切结合强度的影响。材料与方法:采用CAD/CAM技术,利用(IPS e.max CAD)软件制备了64个尺寸为10x12x3.5 mm的陶瓷样品。根据表面处理将陶瓷样品分为两组(n=32):先用氢氟酸,再用Monobond n或Monobond Etch和prime。根据刻蚀时间60秒或120秒将每一主组分为两个亚组(n=16)。制作复合树脂圆盘(直径4mm ×厚度3mm)尺寸。每个亚组根据所使用的粘接树脂水泥(Multilink n)或自粘树脂水泥(G-CEM LinkAce)的类型进一步细分为两组(n=8)。结合后的试样在37℃水浴中保存5个月,然后进行10,000次热循环。采用万能试验机记录各试件的抗剪粘结强度值。使用立体显微镜(10倍)和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)进行失效分析。结果:高频单氮治疗组SBS值为11.9 ~ 15.1 MPa, MEP治疗组SBS值为13.9 ~ 15.8 MPa。ANOVAs检验显示,两种蚀刻剂用于表面处理和粘合使用的粘结剂之间存在统计学差异。而蚀刻时间因子差异无统计学意义。各因素间交互作用差异无统计学意义P(≤0.05)。大部分试件表现为黏结破坏和混合破坏模式。结论:人工老化后MEP与HF + Monobond N联合使用SBS效果相当。蚀刻时间对SBS结果没有影响。在不考虑其他因素的情况下,粘接树脂水泥比自粘树脂水泥表现出更高的SBS值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信