Letícia Moreschi, João Paulo De Carli, Marciele Cristiane Spanemberg Fuhr, Renan Brandenburg Dos Santos, Paulo Renato Pulga da Silva, Pedro Henrique Corazza
{"title":"Evaluation of compressive and adhesive strengths of a hybrid ceramic and 5Y-PSZ zirconia cemented with three different materials.","authors":"Letícia Moreschi, João Paulo De Carli, Marciele Cristiane Spanemberg Fuhr, Renan Brandenburg Dos Santos, Paulo Renato Pulga da Silva, Pedro Henrique Corazza","doi":"10.1111/eos.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the compressive and adhesive strengths of ceramic restorations (PICN and 5Y-PSZ zirconia) cemented with one of three types of cements: conventional glass ionomer cement (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GI), and self-adhesive resin cement (R). Ceramic specimens (5Y-PSZ, n = 72; PICN, n = 60) were prepared for testing after cementation onto glass fiber-reinforced resin-based composite tooth analogs. The 5Y-PSZ specimens underwent tribochemical silica coating before cementation. Specimens intended for compressive strength evaluation were mechanically cycled (500,000 cycles) before testing. A microtensile bond strength test was used to evaluate adhesive strength, with specimens sectioned into microbars (1 mm<sup>2</sup> cross-section) and loaded until fracture. If pre-test failures occurred, bond strength was assessed using microshear tests. PICN restorations showed significantly higher compressive strength than 5Y-PSZ. For PICN, self-adhesive resin cement yielded the highest compressive strength. For adhesive strength, PICN restorations cemented with self-adhesive or RM-GI cements outperformed GI. The 5Y-PSZ+R combination showed the highest microshear bond strength, superior to 5Y-PSZ+RM-GI and 5Y-PSZ+GI. Resin cements showed higher compressive and adhesive strengths for PICN than glass ionomer-based cements. For 5Y-PSZ, the cement type did not significantly affect compressive strength. Overall, PICN restorations outperformed 5Y-PSZ in compressive and adhesive strengths.</p>","PeriodicalId":11983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"e70017"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.70017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the compressive and adhesive strengths of ceramic restorations (PICN and 5Y-PSZ zirconia) cemented with one of three types of cements: conventional glass ionomer cement (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GI), and self-adhesive resin cement (R). Ceramic specimens (5Y-PSZ, n = 72; PICN, n = 60) were prepared for testing after cementation onto glass fiber-reinforced resin-based composite tooth analogs. The 5Y-PSZ specimens underwent tribochemical silica coating before cementation. Specimens intended for compressive strength evaluation were mechanically cycled (500,000 cycles) before testing. A microtensile bond strength test was used to evaluate adhesive strength, with specimens sectioned into microbars (1 mm2 cross-section) and loaded until fracture. If pre-test failures occurred, bond strength was assessed using microshear tests. PICN restorations showed significantly higher compressive strength than 5Y-PSZ. For PICN, self-adhesive resin cement yielded the highest compressive strength. For adhesive strength, PICN restorations cemented with self-adhesive or RM-GI cements outperformed GI. The 5Y-PSZ+R combination showed the highest microshear bond strength, superior to 5Y-PSZ+RM-GI and 5Y-PSZ+GI. Resin cements showed higher compressive and adhesive strengths for PICN than glass ionomer-based cements. For 5Y-PSZ, the cement type did not significantly affect compressive strength. Overall, PICN restorations outperformed 5Y-PSZ in compressive and adhesive strengths.
本研究旨在评估陶瓷修复体(PICN和5Y-PSZ氧化锆)用三种类型的水泥(传统玻璃离子水泥浆(GI),树脂改性玻璃离子水泥浆(RM-GI)和自粘树脂水泥浆(R))中的一种胶结的抗压和粘接强度。陶瓷试样(5Y-PSZ, n = 72;制备PICN, n = 60),将其粘接在玻璃纤维增强树脂基复合牙类似物上进行测试。5Y-PSZ试样在胶结前进行了摩擦化学二氧化硅涂层处理。用于抗压强度评估的样品在测试前进行机械循环(500,000次循环)。采用微拉伸粘结强度试验评估粘接强度,将试样切成微棒(1 mm2横截面),加载至断裂。如果试验前发生故障,则使用微剪切试验评估粘结强度。PICN修复体的抗压强度明显高于5Y-PSZ。对于PICN,自粘树脂水泥的抗压强度最高。在粘接强度方面,使用自粘剂或RM-GI胶结剂粘合的PICN修复体优于GI。5Y-PSZ+R组合的微剪切结合强度最高,优于5Y-PSZ+RM-GI和5Y-PSZ+GI。树脂水泥比玻璃离子基水泥具有更高的抗压强度和粘接强度。对于5Y-PSZ,水泥类型对抗压强度影响不显著。总体而言,PICN修复体在抗压和粘接强度方面优于5Y-PSZ。
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Oral Sciences is an international journal which publishes original research papers within clinical dentistry, on all basic science aspects of structure, chemistry, developmental biology, physiology and pathology of relevant tissues, as well as on microbiology, biomaterials and the behavioural sciences as they relate to dentistry. In general, analytical studies are preferred to descriptive ones. Reviews, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor will also be considered for publication.
The journal is published bimonthly.