Taciana Emília Leite Vila-Nova, Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura, Gabriela Monteiro de Araújo, Rafael de Almeida Spinelli Pinto, Fabíola Pessôa Pereira Leite, Renata Marques Melo, Mutlu Özcan, Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção E Souza
{"title":"应用氢氟酸蚀刻或自酸蚀底漆后，粘合剂树脂对 CAD/CAM 玻璃陶瓷粘合持久性的影响。","authors":"Taciana Emília Leite Vila-Nova, Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura, Gabriela Monteiro de Araújo, Rafael de Almeida Spinelli Pinto, Fabíola Pessôa Pereira Leite, Renata Marques Melo, Mutlu Özcan, Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção E Souza","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b3240691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods, namely conventional hydrofluoric acid vs self-etching primer, and the application of adhesive on the bond strength of resin cement to CAD/CAM glass-ceramics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Blocks (N = 96) (12 x 10 x 2.5 mm) were manufactured, 24 for each tested ceramic type: lithium silicate ceramic (LS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (FD), and lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LD). For bond strength testing, 64 blocks were randomly divided into 16 groups (4 blocks per group) according to the following factors: ceramic: 4 levels; etching: 2 levels (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane or Monobond Etch & Prime [MEP]); and adhesive application: 2 levels, with (signified as A) and without. Then for each group, 15 resin cement cylinders (AllCem Dual, FGM) were built up. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles) and to shear bonding strength testing (SBS) (100 kgf, 0.5 mm/min). Mean shear stresses (MPa) were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test, and Weibull analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean bond strength of group PIC-HFS-A (28.45 ± 7.6 MPa) was significantly higher than that of groups LS-HFS-A (12.11 ± 2.7MPa) and FDHFSA (20.86 ± 2.0MPa). Group PIC-HFS bond strength (25.02 ± 6.5 MPa) was significantly higher only when compared to group LS-HFS (15.82 ± 4.4 MPa). The LS group presented lower SBS compared to all other groups. No significant differences were found between HFS and MEP surface treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surface treatment with MEP promotes adhesion similar to that of HFS. Additional application of adhesive after the surface treatments did not improve the bond strength.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":" ","pages":"279-289"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Adhesive Resin Application on the Durability of Adhesion to CAD/CAM Glass-Ceramics after either Hydrofluoric Acid Etching or Self-etch Primer Application.\",\"authors\":\"Taciana Emília Leite Vila-Nova, Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura, Gabriela Monteiro de Araújo, Rafael de Almeida Spinelli Pinto, Fabíola Pessôa Pereira Leite, Renata Marques Melo, Mutlu Özcan, Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção E Souza\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b3240691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods, namely conventional hydrofluoric acid vs self-etching primer, and the application of adhesive on the bond strength of resin cement to CAD/CAM glass-ceramics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Blocks (N = 96) (12 x 10 x 2.5 mm) were manufactured, 24 for each tested ceramic type: lithium silicate ceramic (LS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (FD), and lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LD). For bond strength testing, 64 blocks were randomly divided into 16 groups (4 blocks per group) according to the following factors: ceramic: 4 levels; etching: 2 levels (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane or Monobond Etch & Prime [MEP]); and adhesive application: 2 levels, with (signified as A) and without. Then for each group, 15 resin cement cylinders (AllCem Dual, FGM) were built up. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles) and to shear bonding strength testing (SBS) (100 kgf, 0.5 mm/min). Mean shear stresses (MPa) were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test, and Weibull analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean bond strength of group PIC-HFS-A (28.45 ± 7.6 MPa) was significantly higher than that of groups LS-HFS-A (12.11 ± 2.7MPa) and FDHFSA (20.86 ± 2.0MPa). Group PIC-HFS bond strength (25.02 ± 6.5 MPa) was significantly higher only when compared to group LS-HFS (15.82 ± 4.4 MPa). The LS group presented lower SBS compared to all other groups. No significant differences were found between HFS and MEP surface treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surface treatment with MEP promotes adhesion similar to that of HFS. Additional application of adhesive after the surface treatments did not improve the bond strength.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"279-289\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b3240691\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b3240691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of Adhesive Resin Application on the Durability of Adhesion to CAD/CAM Glass-Ceramics after either Hydrofluoric Acid Etching or Self-etch Primer Application.
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods, namely conventional hydrofluoric acid vs self-etching primer, and the application of adhesive on the bond strength of resin cement to CAD/CAM glass-ceramics.
Materials and methods: Blocks (N = 96) (12 x 10 x 2.5 mm) were manufactured, 24 for each tested ceramic type: lithium silicate ceramic (LS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (FD), and lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (LD). For bond strength testing, 64 blocks were randomly divided into 16 groups (4 blocks per group) according to the following factors: ceramic: 4 levels; etching: 2 levels (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane or Monobond Etch & Prime [MEP]); and adhesive application: 2 levels, with (signified as A) and without. Then for each group, 15 resin cement cylinders (AllCem Dual, FGM) were built up. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles) and to shear bonding strength testing (SBS) (100 kgf, 0.5 mm/min). Mean shear stresses (MPa) were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test, and Weibull analysis.
Results: The mean bond strength of group PIC-HFS-A (28.45 ± 7.6 MPa) was significantly higher than that of groups LS-HFS-A (12.11 ± 2.7MPa) and FDHFSA (20.86 ± 2.0MPa). Group PIC-HFS bond strength (25.02 ± 6.5 MPa) was significantly higher only when compared to group LS-HFS (15.82 ± 4.4 MPa). The LS group presented lower SBS compared to all other groups. No significant differences were found between HFS and MEP surface treatments.
Conclusion: Surface treatment with MEP promotes adhesion similar to that of HFS. Additional application of adhesive after the surface treatments did not improve the bond strength.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
