Effects of Surface Treatment Procedures on Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.

Peng Yu, Xiao Yan Wang
{"title":"Effects of Surface Treatment Procedures on Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.","authors":"Peng Yu,&nbsp;Xiao Yan Wang","doi":"10.3290/j.cjdr.b1530491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of resin cement to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic conditioned with different surface treatment procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Crystallised slices of lithium disilicate glass ceramic were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) according to different surface treatment procedures: the no surface treatment (NT) group was untreated; the hydrofluoric acid (HF) group was conditioned with 4.5% HF; the silane (S) group was conditioned with a silane coupling agent; the hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFS) group was conditioned with HF followed by the silane coupling agent; and the Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) group was conditioned with the one-step self-etching primer MEP. Resin cement was applied to the ceramic surfaces and irradiated. A μSBS test was performed. Failure analysis, surface roughness tests, surface topography examination and elemental analysis were also conducted. The data were analysed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MEP group resulted in comparable μSBS to the HFS group (16.9 ± 4.3 MPa and 16.0 ± 2.2 MPa, respectively), but a significantly higher μSBS than the NT (1.0 ± 0.9 MPa), HF (8.9 ± 3.9 MPa) and S (12.6 ± 2.5 MPa) groups. Adhesive failure was mainly observed in the NT and HF groups, while the S, HFS and MEP groups demonstrated the most mixed failure. Though micrographs revealed a roughened surface in the HF group, no significant difference was found with any other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the μSBS of resin cement to lithium disilicate glass ceramic etched with MEP is as efficient as that treated with HF and silane.</p>","PeriodicalId":74983,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA)","volume":"24 2","pages":"119-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.cjdr.b1530491","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

Objective: To evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of resin cement to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic conditioned with different surface treatment procedures.

Methods: Crystallised slices of lithium disilicate glass ceramic were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) according to different surface treatment procedures: the no surface treatment (NT) group was untreated; the hydrofluoric acid (HF) group was conditioned with 4.5% HF; the silane (S) group was conditioned with a silane coupling agent; the hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFS) group was conditioned with HF followed by the silane coupling agent; and the Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) group was conditioned with the one-step self-etching primer MEP. Resin cement was applied to the ceramic surfaces and irradiated. A μSBS test was performed. Failure analysis, surface roughness tests, surface topography examination and elemental analysis were also conducted. The data were analysed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05).

Results: The MEP group resulted in comparable μSBS to the HFS group (16.9 ± 4.3 MPa and 16.0 ± 2.2 MPa, respectively), but a significantly higher μSBS than the NT (1.0 ± 0.9 MPa), HF (8.9 ± 3.9 MPa) and S (12.6 ± 2.5 MPa) groups. Adhesive failure was mainly observed in the NT and HF groups, while the S, HFS and MEP groups demonstrated the most mixed failure. Though micrographs revealed a roughened surface in the HF group, no significant difference was found with any other groups.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the μSBS of resin cement to lithium disilicate glass ceramic etched with MEP is as efficient as that treated with HF and silane.

表面处理工艺对二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷粘结强度的影响。
目的:评价不同表面处理工艺条件下树脂水泥与二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷的微剪切粘结强度(μSBS)。方法:将结晶后的二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷片根据不同的表面处理方式随机分为5组(n = 10):未经表面处理组(NT组);氢氟酸(HF)组以4.5% HF为条件;硅烷(S)组用硅烷偶联剂进行条件化;氢氟酸-硅烷(HFS)组先用HF调质,再用硅烷偶联剂调质;单键蚀刻及引物(MEP)组(Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)用一步自蚀刻引物MEP进行条件反射。将树脂水泥涂于陶瓷表面并进行辐照处理。进行μSBS试验。并进行了失效分析、表面粗糙度测试、表面形貌测试和元素分析。资料分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和Tukey诚实显著性差异检验(P < 0.05)。结果:MEP组的μSBS与HFS组相当(分别为16.9±4.3 MPa和16.0±2.2 MPa),但显著高于NT组(1.0±0.9 MPa)、HF组(8.9±3.9 MPa)和S组(12.6±2.5 MPa)。粘附失败主要发生在NT和HF组,而S、HFS和MEP组表现为混合性失败。虽然显微照片显示HF组表面粗糙,但与其他组无显著差异。结论:在本研究的范围内,可以得出树脂水泥对MEP蚀刻的二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷的μSBS与HF和硅烷处理的μSBS同样有效。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信