Title of article
Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD–CAM ceramic
Author/Authors
M. Peumans، نويسنده , , K. Hikita، نويسنده , , J. De Munck، نويسنده , , K. Van Landuyt، نويسنده , , A. Poitevin، نويسنده , , P. Lambrechts، نويسنده , , B. Van Meerbeek، نويسنده ,
Issue Information
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2007
Pages
7
From page
282
To page
288
Abstract
Objectives
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) of an adhesive luting agent to CAD–CAM ceramic. The hypothesis tested was that neither of the surface treatments would produce higher bond strength of the adhesive luting agent to CAD–CAM ceramic.
Methods
Ceramic specimens of two different sizes (6 mm × 8 mm × 3 mm; 13 mm × 8 mm × 4 mm) were fabricated from ProCAD ceramic blocs (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with a low-speed diamond saw. The ceramic blocks were divided into seven groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: etching with 37% H3PO4; group 3: etching with 37% H3PO4 + silane; group 4: etching with 37% H3PO4 + silane + adhesive resin; group 5: etching with 4.9% HF acid; group 6: etching with 4.9% HF acid + silane; group 7: etching with HF acid + silane + adhesive resin. After surface treatment, two differently sized porcelain disks were bonded together with a composite luting agent (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent). The specimens were stored for 24 h in distilled water at 37 °C prior to μTBS testing. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the influence of surface treatment and Scheffe multiple comparisons test determined pair-wise statistical differences (p < 0.05) in μTBS between the experimental groups.
Results
The mean μTBSs (standard deviation) are: group 1: 12.8 (±4.6) MPa; group 2: 19.1 (±5.0) MPa; group 3: 27.4 (±11.1) MPa; group 4: 34.0 (±8.9) MPa; group 5: 37.6 (±8.4) MPa; group 6: 34.6 (±12.8) MPa; group 7: 34.5 (±5.1) MPa. Statistical significant differences were found between group 1 and groups 3–7, and between group 2 and groups 4–7. All specimens of groups 1–4 exhibited adhesive failures, while a combination of adhesive and mixed (adhesive and cohesive) failures was observed in the specimens of groups 5–7.
Conclusions
The results show that surface treatment is important to bond to ceramic and suggests that etching is needed preferably with hydrofluoric acid than with phosphoric acid.
Keywords
AdhesionCAD–CAM ceramicLuting resin cementMicro-tensile bond strengthSurface treatmentLeucite-reinforced ceramic
Journal title
Journal of Dentistry
Serial Year
2007
Journal title
Journal of Dentistry
Record number
507612
Link To Document