Influence of Surface Conditioning Protocols on Reparability of CAD/CAM Zirconia-reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic.

Rana Al-Thagafi, W. Al-Zordk, Samah Saker
{"title":"Influence of Surface Conditioning Protocols on Reparability of CAD/CAM Zirconia-reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic.","authors":"Rana Al-Thagafi, W. Al-Zordk, Samah Saker","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.a35909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE To test the effect of surface conditioning protocols on the reparability of CAD/CAM zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic compared to lithium-disilicate glass ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Vita Suprinity) and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD) were categorized into four groups based on the surface conditioning protocol used. Group C: no treatment (control); group HF: 5% hydrofluoric acid etching for 60 s, silane (Monobond-S) application for 60 s, air drying; group HF-H: 5% HF acid etching for 60 s, application of silane for 60 s, air drying, application of Heliobond, light curing for 20 s; group CO: sandblasting with CoJet sand followed by silanization. Composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) was built up into 4 x 6 x 3 mm blocks using teflon molds. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (5000x, 5°C to 55°C). The microtensile bond strength test was employed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. SEM was employed for evaluation of all the debonded microbars, the failure type was categorized as either adhesive (failure at adhesive layer), cohesive (failure at ceramic or composite resin), or mixed (failure between adhesive layer and substrate). Two-way ANOVA and the Tukey's HSD post-hoc test were applied to test for significant differences in bond strength values in relation to different materials and surface pretreatment (p < 0.05). RESULTS The highest microtensile repair bond strength for Vita Suprinity was reported in group CO (33.1 ± 2.4 MPa) and the lowest in group HF (27.4 ± 4.4 MPa). Regarding IPS e.max CAD, group CO showed the highest (30.5 ± 4.9 MPa) and HF the lowest microtensile bond strength (22.4 ± 5.7 MPa). Groups HF, HF-H, and CO showed statistically significant differences in terms of all ceramic types used (p < 0.05). The control group showed exclusively adhesive failures, while in HF, HF-H, and CO groups, mixed failures were predominant. CONCLUSIONS Repair bond strength to zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics and lithium-disilicate glass ceramic could be improved when ceramic surfaces are sandblasted with CoJet sand followed by silanization.","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a35909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

PURPOSE To test the effect of surface conditioning protocols on the reparability of CAD/CAM zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic compared to lithium-disilicate glass ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Vita Suprinity) and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD) were categorized into four groups based on the surface conditioning protocol used. Group C: no treatment (control); group HF: 5% hydrofluoric acid etching for 60 s, silane (Monobond-S) application for 60 s, air drying; group HF-H: 5% HF acid etching for 60 s, application of silane for 60 s, air drying, application of Heliobond, light curing for 20 s; group CO: sandblasting with CoJet sand followed by silanization. Composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) was built up into 4 x 6 x 3 mm blocks using teflon molds. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (5000x, 5°C to 55°C). The microtensile bond strength test was employed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. SEM was employed for evaluation of all the debonded microbars, the failure type was categorized as either adhesive (failure at adhesive layer), cohesive (failure at ceramic or composite resin), or mixed (failure between adhesive layer and substrate). Two-way ANOVA and the Tukey's HSD post-hoc test were applied to test for significant differences in bond strength values in relation to different materials and surface pretreatment (p < 0.05). RESULTS The highest microtensile repair bond strength for Vita Suprinity was reported in group CO (33.1 ± 2.4 MPa) and the lowest in group HF (27.4 ± 4.4 MPa). Regarding IPS e.max CAD, group CO showed the highest (30.5 ± 4.9 MPa) and HF the lowest microtensile bond strength (22.4 ± 5.7 MPa). Groups HF, HF-H, and CO showed statistically significant differences in terms of all ceramic types used (p < 0.05). The control group showed exclusively adhesive failures, while in HF, HF-H, and CO groups, mixed failures were predominant. CONCLUSIONS Repair bond strength to zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics and lithium-disilicate glass ceramic could be improved when ceramic surfaces are sandblasted with CoJet sand followed by silanization.
表面调理方案对CAD/CAM氧化锆增强硅酸锂陶瓷可修复性的影响。
目的测试不同表面处理方案对CAD/CAM氧化锆增强硅酸锂陶瓷与二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷可修复性的影响。材料与方法根据表面处理方法,将氧化锆增强硅酸锂陶瓷(Vita Suprinity)和二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷块(IPS e.max CAD)分为四组。C组:未治疗(对照);HF组:5%氢氟酸蚀刻60 s,硅烷(Monobond-S)应用60 s,风干;HF- h组:5% HF酸蚀60 s,硅烷涂敷60 s,风干,Heliobond涂敷,光固化20 s;CO组:CoJet砂喷砂后硅烷化。复合树脂(Tetric EvoCeram)使用聚四氟乙烯模具构建成4 x 6 x 3毫米的块。所有标本进行热循环(5000x, 5°C至55°C)。微拉伸粘结强度试验采用十字速度为1 mm/min。利用扫描电镜对所有脱粘的微棒进行评价,将其破坏类型分为粘接破坏(粘接层破坏)、粘接破坏(陶瓷或复合树脂破坏)或混合破坏(粘接层与基材之间破坏)。采用双因素方差分析和Tukey’s HSD事后检验来检验不同材料和表面预处理的粘结强度值是否存在显著差异(p < 0.05)。结果Vita suprity的微拉伸修复粘结强度CO组最高(33.1±2.4 MPa), HF组最低(27.4±4.4 MPa)。在IPS e.max CAD微拉伸结合强度方面,CO组最高(30.5±4.9 MPa), HF组最低(22.4±5.7 MPa)。HF组、HF- h组、CO组各陶瓷类型差异均有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。对照组仅表现为粘接失效,而HF、HF- h和CO组以混合性失效为主。结论对氧化锆增强硅酸锂陶瓷和二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷表面进行CoJet喷砂后再进行硅烷化处理,可提高其修复结合强度。
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