Retention strength of zirconia occlusal veneer restoration. Effect of dental bonding surface and cement type

Pub Date : 2023-07-18
Walid Al-Zordk, Ashraf Ibrahim Ali
{"title":"Retention strength of zirconia occlusal veneer restoration. Effect of dental bonding surface and cement type","authors":"Walid Al-Zordk, Ashraf Ibrahim Ali","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The present study aimed to evaluate the retention strength of nonretentive zirconia occlusal veneers bonded to different bonding surfaces (enamel, enamel and dentin, and enamel with composite filling) using two adhesive resin cement systems that use either organophosphate carboxylic acid or organophosphate monomers as a ceramic primer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Sixty extracted mandibular molars were prepared to receive occlusal veneers as follows (n = 20): 1-mm reduction within enamel; 2-mm reduction within enamel and dentin; 1-mm reduction within enamel with composite filling. Each occlusal veneer was designed with an occlusal bar to aid in the retention test, then milled from a zirconia block, and sintered. Within each group, the zirconia occlusal veneers were bonded using either Duo-Link Universal or Panavia V5 (10 specimens each). All specimens were thermocycled for 5000 cycles. After the pull-off test, the retention strength was calculated for each specimen. Each specimen was examined under magnification to determine its mode of failure. Representative specimens were examined using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests (P = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both bonding substrate and cement type had a significant influence on retention strength values (P < 0.05). The two-way ANOVA showed a significant interaction between bonding substrate and cement type (P = 0.003). There were significant differences in the retention strength between the cements in both the enamel and enamel and dentin substrates (P < 0.05), but no significant difference between the cements in the enamel with composite filling substrate (P > 0.05). The predominant mode of failure was cement remaining principally in the restoration surface (adhesive failure), followed by cement adhesion to both the tooth and the restoration surface (mixed failure).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among the studied substrates, enamel was the optimal dental bonding surface. However, bonding to dentin was not a limiting factor for the retention of zirconia occlusal veneers. The resin cement using an organophosphate (Panavia V5) provided superior retention strength compared with the cement using organophosphate carboxylic acid monomer (Duo-Link Universal).</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the retention strength of nonretentive zirconia occlusal veneers bonded to different bonding surfaces (enamel, enamel and dentin, and enamel with composite filling) using two adhesive resin cement systems that use either organophosphate carboxylic acid or organophosphate monomers as a ceramic primer.

Materials and methods: Sixty extracted mandibular molars were prepared to receive occlusal veneers as follows (n = 20): 1-mm reduction within enamel; 2-mm reduction within enamel and dentin; 1-mm reduction within enamel with composite filling. Each occlusal veneer was designed with an occlusal bar to aid in the retention test, then milled from a zirconia block, and sintered. Within each group, the zirconia occlusal veneers were bonded using either Duo-Link Universal or Panavia V5 (10 specimens each). All specimens were thermocycled for 5000 cycles. After the pull-off test, the retention strength was calculated for each specimen. Each specimen was examined under magnification to determine its mode of failure. Representative specimens were examined using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests (P = 0.05).

Results: Both bonding substrate and cement type had a significant influence on retention strength values (P < 0.05). The two-way ANOVA showed a significant interaction between bonding substrate and cement type (P = 0.003). There were significant differences in the retention strength between the cements in both the enamel and enamel and dentin substrates (P < 0.05), but no significant difference between the cements in the enamel with composite filling substrate (P > 0.05). The predominant mode of failure was cement remaining principally in the restoration surface (adhesive failure), followed by cement adhesion to both the tooth and the restoration surface (mixed failure).

Conclusions: Among the studied substrates, enamel was the optimal dental bonding surface. However, bonding to dentin was not a limiting factor for the retention of zirconia occlusal veneers. The resin cement using an organophosphate (Panavia V5) provided superior retention strength compared with the cement using organophosphate carboxylic acid monomer (Duo-Link Universal).

分享
氧化锆咬合贴面修复体的固位强度。牙科粘接表面和粘接剂类型的影响
目的:本研究旨在评估使用有机磷酸酯羧酸或有机磷酸酯单体作为陶瓷底漆的两种粘接树脂胶合剂系统粘接在不同粘接面(釉质、釉质和牙本质以及釉质与复合填充物)上的非固着性氧化锆咬合面贴面的固位强度:对 60 颗拔出的下颌磨牙进行如下咬合贴面准备(n = 20):在釉质内缩小 1 毫米;在釉质和牙本质内缩小 2 毫米;在釉质内缩小 1 毫米并进行复合填充。每个咬合贴面都设计了一个咬合杆以帮助进行固位测试,然后用氧化锆块铣削并烧结。在每组中,使用 Duo-Link Universal 或 Panavia V5 粘接氧化锆咬合贴面(各 10 个试样)。所有试样都进行了 5000 次热循环。拉脱试验后,计算每个试样的保持强度。在放大镜下检查每个试样,以确定其失效模式。使用扫描电子显微镜对代表性试样进行了检查。数据分析采用双向方差分析(ANOVA)和 Tukey HSD 检验(P = 0.05):结果:粘接基材和水泥类型对保持强度值都有显著影响(P < 0.05)。双向方差分析显示,粘接基材和水泥类型之间存在显著的交互作用(P = 0.003)。在釉质基底和釉质与牙本质基底中,不同粘结剂的固位强度有明显差异(P < 0.05),但在釉质与复合材料充填基底中,不同粘结剂的固位强度没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。主要的失效模式是骨水泥主要留在修复体表面(粘附性失效),其次是骨水泥同时粘附在牙齿和修复体表面(混合性失效):结论:在所研究的基底中,牙釉质是最佳的牙科粘接表面。结论:在所研究的基底中,牙釉质是最佳的牙科粘接面,但与牙本质的粘接并不是氧化锆咬合贴面固位的限制因素。与使用有机磷酸酯羧酸单体(Duo-Link Universal)的树脂粘结剂相比,使用有机磷酸酯(Panavia V5)的树脂粘结剂具有更高的固位强度。
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
×
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