{"title":"表面处理工艺对二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷粘结强度的影响。","authors":"Peng Yu, 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":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Surface Treatment Procedures on Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.\",\"authors\":\"Peng Yu, 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}","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}
Effects of Surface Treatment Procedures on Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.
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.