Effects of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentrations, Commercial Brands, and Adhesive Application on the Bond Strength of a Resin Luting Agent to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.
Drc Dos Santos, R R Pacheco, G H Komegae, J A da Silva, Danl Lima, Nip Pini, D Sundfeld
{"title":"Effects of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentrations, Commercial Brands, and Adhesive Application on the Bond Strength of a Resin Luting Agent to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.","authors":"Drc Dos Santos, R R Pacheco, G H Komegae, J A da Silva, Danl Lima, Nip Pini, D Sundfeld","doi":"10.2341/23-034-L","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the surface topography/roughness and bond strength of a resin luting agent to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic after etching with different concentrations of hydrofluoric acid (HF) and commercial brands.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For bond strength evaluation, 260 lithium disilicate glass ceramic (EMX) discs were randomly distributed into 13 groups based on concentrations of HF and commercial brands (n=20): 5% and 10%, Lysanda (LY5 and LY10); 5% and 10%, Maquira (MA5 and MA10); 5% and 10%, FGM (FG5 and FG10); 4.8%, Ivoclar Vivadent (IV5); 5% and 10%, PHS do Brasil (PH5 and PH10); 5% and 10%, BM4 (BM5 and BM10); 9%, Ultradent Inc (UL10); and Dentsply (DE10). A further random distribution (n=10) was made based on the application (+) or absence (-) of an adhesive layer. Resin luting agent cylinders (1 mm in diameter) were added on EMX surfaces, light-cured, and stored for 24 hours in deionized water at 37°C. On a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC), specimens were submitted to a microshear bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. A representative etched EMX disc from each group underwent surface topography analysis using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (n=1), and five (n=5) etched EMX discs from each group were tested for surface roughness. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey test (α=0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A less conditioned and smoother surface was observed for 5% HF compared to 10%. Additionally, commercial brands of HF were shown to affect bond strength. When the adhesive layer was not used (-), a 10% concentration promoted higher bond strengths to EMX. However, when adhesive was applied (+), the concentrations of HF and commercial brands had no effect on bond strength results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A 10% concentration of HF results in higher bond strength than a 5% concentration. If an adhesive layer is applied, neither this distinction nor the influence of commercial brands is observed.</p>","PeriodicalId":19502,"journal":{"name":"Operative dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"700-710"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2341/23-034-L","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the surface topography/roughness and bond strength of a resin luting agent to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic after etching with different concentrations of hydrofluoric acid (HF) and commercial brands.
Methods: For bond strength evaluation, 260 lithium disilicate glass ceramic (EMX) discs were randomly distributed into 13 groups based on concentrations of HF and commercial brands (n=20): 5% and 10%, Lysanda (LY5 and LY10); 5% and 10%, Maquira (MA5 and MA10); 5% and 10%, FGM (FG5 and FG10); 4.8%, Ivoclar Vivadent (IV5); 5% and 10%, PHS do Brasil (PH5 and PH10); 5% and 10%, BM4 (BM5 and BM10); 9%, Ultradent Inc (UL10); and Dentsply (DE10). A further random distribution (n=10) was made based on the application (+) or absence (-) of an adhesive layer. Resin luting agent cylinders (1 mm in diameter) were added on EMX surfaces, light-cured, and stored for 24 hours in deionized water at 37°C. On a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC), specimens were submitted to a microshear bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. A representative etched EMX disc from each group underwent surface topography analysis using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (n=1), and five (n=5) etched EMX discs from each group were tested for surface roughness. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey test (α=0.05).
Results: A less conditioned and smoother surface was observed for 5% HF compared to 10%. Additionally, commercial brands of HF were shown to affect bond strength. When the adhesive layer was not used (-), a 10% concentration promoted higher bond strengths to EMX. However, when adhesive was applied (+), the concentrations of HF and commercial brands had no effect on bond strength results.
Conclusions: A 10% concentration of HF results in higher bond strength than a 5% concentration. If an adhesive layer is applied, neither this distinction nor the influence of commercial brands is observed.
目的:评估用不同浓度的氢氟酸(HF)和商业品牌蚀刻后,树脂粘合剂与二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷的表面形貌/粗糙度和结合强度。方法:为了评估粘结强度,将260个二硅酸锂微晶玻璃(EMX)圆盘根据HF和商业品牌(n=20)的浓度随机分为13组:5%和10%,Lysanda(LY5和LY10);5%和10%,马奎拉(MA5和MA10);5%和10%的女性生殖器切割(FG5和FG10);4.8%,Ivoclar Vivadent(IV5);5%和10%,PHS do Brasil(PH5和PH10);5%和10%、BM4(BM5和BM10);9%,Ultradent公司(UL10);和Dentsply(DE10)。基于粘合剂层的施加(+)或不存在(-),进行进一步的随机分布(n=10)。在EMX表面添加树脂洗脱剂圆柱体(直径1mm),光固化,并在37°C的去离子水中储存24小时。在通用试验机(DL 500,EMIC)上,将试样以1mm/min的十字头速度进行微剪切结合强度试验,直至失效。使用场发射扫描电子显微镜(n=1)对每组的代表性蚀刻EMX盘进行表面形貌分析,并对每组的五个(n=5)蚀刻EMX盘中的表面粗糙度进行测试。使用方差分析和Tukey检验(α=0.05)对数据进行统计分析。结果:与10%相比,5%HF的条件较差,表面更光滑。此外,商业品牌的HF被证明会影响粘合强度。当不使用粘合剂层(-)时,10%的浓度促进了与EMX的更高的结合强度。然而,当使用粘合剂(+)时,HF和商业品牌的浓度对粘合强度结果没有影响。结论:10%浓度的HF比5%浓度的HF具有更高的结合强度。如果使用粘合层,则既没有观察到这种区别,也没有观察到商业品牌的影响。
期刊介绍:
Operative Dentistry is a refereed, international journal published bi-monthly and distributed to subscribers in over 50 countries. In 2012, we printed 84 articles (672 pages). Papers were submitted by authors from 45 countries, in the categories of Clinical Research, Laboratory Research, Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations and Invited Papers, as well as Editorials and Abstracts.
One of the strong points of our journal is that our current publication time for accepted manuscripts is 4 to 6 months from the date of submission. Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations have a very quick turnaround time, which allows for very rapid publication of clinical based concepts. We also provide color for those papers that would benefit from its use.
The journal does not accept any advertising but you will find postings for faculty positions. Additionally, the journal also does not rent, sell or otherwise allow its subscriber list to be used by any other entity