Effect of Feldspathic Ceramic Surface Treatments on Bond Strength to Resin Cement

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 291-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Shiu ◽  
Wanessa Christine De Souza-Zaroni ◽  
Carlos de Paula Eduardo ◽  
Michel Nicolau Youssef
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Ceramic Surface

scholarly journals The effect of surface treatment and thermocycling on the shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneering material cemented with different luting cements

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. e191581
Author(s):  
Fawaz Alqahtani ◽  
Mohammed Alkhurays
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acid Etch

Aim: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of different surface treatment and thermocycling on the shear bond strength (SBS) of different dual-/light-cure cements bonding porcelain laminate veneers (PLV). Methods: One hundred and twenty A2 shade lithium disilicate discs were divided into three groups based on the resin cement used and on the pretreatment received and then divided into two subgroups: thermocycling and control. The surface treatment were either micro-etched with aluminium trioxide and 10% hydrofluoric acid or etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid only before cementation. Three dual-cure (Variolink Esthetic (I), RelyX Ultimate (II), and RelyX Unicem (III)) and three light-cure (Variolink Veneer (IV), Variolink Esthetic (V), RelyX Veneer (VI)) resin cements were used for cementation. The SBS of the samples was evaluated and analysed using three -way ANOVA with statistical significant set at α=0.05. Results: For all resin cements tested with different surface treatments, there was a statistically significant difference within resin cements per surface treatment (p<0.05). The shear bond strength in the micro-etch group was significant higher than the acid-etch group (p<0.05) There was statistically significant interaction observed between the surface treatment and thermocycling (p<0.05) as well as the cement and thermocycling(p<0.05). It was observed that the reduction in shear bond strength after thermocycling was more pronounced in the acid etch subgroup as compared to the microetch subgroup. However, the interaction between the three factors: surface treatments, thermocycling and resin cements did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between and within groups (p=0.087). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it acan be concluded that Dual cure resin cements showed a higher Shear bond strength as compared to light cure resin cements. Thermal cycling significantly decreased the shear bond strength for both ceramic surface treatments. After thermocycling, the specimens with 10% HF surface treatment showed lower shear bond strength values when compared to those treated by sandblasting with Al2O3 particles.

scholarly journals Bond and topography evaluation of a Y-TZP ceramic with a superficial low-fusing porcelain glass layer after different hydrofluoric acid etching protocols

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 348-353
Author(s):  
Arthur Chaves SIMÕES ◽  
Jean Soares MIRANDA ◽  
Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e SOUZA ◽  
Estevão Tomomitsu KIMPARA ◽  
Fabíola Pessôa Pereira LEITE
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Adhesive Bond ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Glass Layer ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Adhesive Failure

Abstract Introduction Despite being one of the most studied ceramics today, zirconia still does not have a well-defined adhesion protocol. Objective Evaluate the influence of different etching times and hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentrations on the zirconia surface and bond strength between a vitrified Y-TZP ceramic and a resin cement. Materials and method The zirconia surface treatments were: sandblasting with silica-coated alumina (Co); glaze application + 5% HF etching for 5s (G5-5s), 10s (G5-10s) or 20s (G5-20s); glaze application + 10% HF etching for 5s (G10-5s), 10 (G10-10s) or 20s (G10-20s) . Then, cement cylinders (3.3 × 3.3 mm) were built up for shear bond test on all specimens. The specimens were subjected to 6000 thermal cycling before the test. Fractures were analyzed by stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn statistical tests (5%). Extra samples of each group were made to obtain profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Result Zirconia-cement bond strength was affected by the ceramic surface treatments (p = 0.001). G10-5s (2.71 MPa) recorded the highest bond strength values, followed by the Co (2.05 MPa) while G5 groups had the lowest bond value. Adhesive failure of the samples predominated. The image analysis revealed G5 groups seem to have a lower roughness when compared to groups treated by 10% HF. The creation of pores in the low-fusing porcelain glass layer surface occurred only when 10% HF was used. Conclusion The low-fusing porcelain glass layer application was able to overcome the sandblasting and obtain a greater adhesive bond to the resinous cement, however, only when 10% HF was used for an interval of 5 seconds.

Effects of Surface Treatments, Thermocycling, and Cyclic Loading on the Bond Strength of a Resin Cement Bonded to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
GB Guarda ◽  
AB Correr ◽  
LS Gonçalves ◽  
AR Costa ◽  
GA Borges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Blocks

SUMMARY Objectives The aim of this present study was to investigate the effect of two surface treatments, fatigue and thermocycling, on the microtensile bond strength of a newly introduced lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) and a dual-cured resin cement. Methods A total of 18 ceramic blocks (10 mm long × 7 mm wide × 3.0 mm thick) were fabricated and divided into six groups (n=3): groups 1, 2, and 3—air particle abraded for five seconds with 50-μm aluminum oxide particles; groups 4, 5, and 6—acid etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds. A silane coupling agent was applied onto all specimens and allowed to dry for five seconds, and the ceramic blocks were bonded to a block of composite Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) with RelyX ARC (3M ESPE) resin cement and placed under a 500-g static load for two minutes. The cement excess was removed with a disposable microbrush, and four periods of light activation for 40 seconds each were performed at right angles using an LED curing unit (UltraLume LED 5, Ultradent) with a final 40 second light exposure from the top surface. All of the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Groups 2 and 5 were submitted to 3,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C, and groups 3 and 6 were submitted to a fatigue test of 100,000 cycles at 2 Hz. Specimens were sectioned perpendicular to the bonding area to obtain beams with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm2 (30 beams per group) and submitted to a microtensile bond strength test in a testing machine (EZ Test) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test (p≤0.05). Results The microtensile bond strength values (MPa) were 26.9 ± 6.9, 22.2 ± 7.8, and 21.2 ± 9.1 for groups 1–3 and 35.0 ± 9.6, 24.3 ± 8.9, and 23.9 ± 6.3 for groups 4–6. For the control group, fatigue testing and thermocycling produced a predominance of adhesive failures. Fatigue and thermocycling significantly decreased the microtensile bond strength for both ceramic surface treatments when compared with the control groups. Etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid significantly increased the microtensile bond strength for the control group.

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos José Soares ◽  
Marcelo Giannini ◽  
Marcelo Tavares de Oliveira ◽  
Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini Paulillo ◽  
Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Bonded Interface ◽  
Luting Composite ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments on composite resin on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. Two laboratory composites for indirect restorations, Solidex and Targis, and a conventional composite, Filtek Z250, were tested. Forty-eight composite resin blocks (5.0 x 5.0 x 5.0mm) were incrementally manufactured, which were randomly divided into six groups, according to the surface treatments: 1- control, 600-grit SiC paper (C); 2- silane priming (SI); 3- sandblasting with 50 mm Al2O3 for 10s (SA); 4- etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s (HF); 5- HF + SI; 6 - SA + SI. Composite blocks submitted to similar surface treatments were bonded together with the resin adhesive Single Bond and Rely X luting composite. A 500-g load was applied for 5 minutes and the samples were light-cured for 40s. The bonded blocks were serially sectioned into 3 slabs with 0.9mm of thickness perpendicularly to the bonded interface (n = 12). Slabs were trimmed to a dumbbell shape and tested in tension at 0.5mm/min. For all composites tested, the application of a silane primer after sandblasting provided the highest bond strength means.

scholarly journals Effects of Universal Adhesive on Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cement to Zirconia Ceramic with Different Surface Treatments

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Zohreh Moradi ◽  
Farnoosh Akbari ◽  
Sara Valizadeh
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Zirconia Ceramic ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Universal Adhesive

Aim. This study aimed to assess shear bond strength (SBS) of resin cement to zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments by using Single Bond Universal. Methods. In this in vitro study, 50 zirconia discs (2 × 6 mm) were divided into 5 groups of (I) sandblasting with silica-coated alumina (CoJet)  + silane + Single Bond 2, (II) sandblasting with CoJet + Single Bond Universal, (III) sandblasting with alumina + Single Bond Universal, (IV) sandblasting with alumina + Z-Prime Plus, and (V) Single Bond Universal with no surface treatment. Resin cement was applied in plastic tubes (3 × 5 mm2), and after 10,000 thermal cycles, the SBS was measured by a universal testing machine. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope at × 40 magnification. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results. The maximum (6.56 ± 4.29 MPa) and minimum (1.94 ± 1.96 MPa) SBS values were noted in groups III and I, respectively. Group III had the highest frequency of mixed failure (60%). Group V had the maximum frequency of adhesive failure (100%). Conclusion. Single Bond Universal + sandblasting with alumina or silica-coated alumina particles is an acceptable method to provide a strong SBS between resin cement and zirconia.

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-ceramic Material

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 920-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bandar MA Al-Makramani ◽  
Fuad A Al-Sanabani ◽  
Abdul AA Razak ◽  
Mohamed I Abu-Hassan ◽  
Ibrahim Z AL-Shami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Ceramic Material ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Effect Of Surface

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) of Turkom-Cera (Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn. Bhd., Puchong, Malaysia) all-ceramic material cemented with resin cement Panavia-F (Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan). Materials and methods Forty Turkom-Cera ceramic disks (10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. The disks were wet ground to 1000-grit and subjected to four surface treatments: (1) No treatment (Control), (2) sandblasting, (3) silane application, and (4) sandblasting + silane. The four groups of 10 specimens each were bonded with Panavia-F resin cement according to manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS was determined using the universal testing machine (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure modes were recorded and a qualitative micromorphologic examination of different surface treatments was performed. The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests. Results The SBS of the control, sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups were: 10.8 ± 1.5, 16.4 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 2.5, and 19.1 ± 2.4 MPa respectively. According to the Tukey HSD test, only the mean SBS of the control group was significantly different from the other three groups. There was no significant difference between sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups. Conclusion In this study, the three surface treatments used improved the bond strength of resin cement to Turkom-Cera disks. Clinical significance The surface treatments used in this study appeared to be suitable methods for the cementation of glass infiltrated all-ceramic restorations. How to cite this article Razak AAA, Abu-Hassan MI, AL-Makramani BMA, AL-Sanabani FA, AL-Shami IZ, Almansour HM. Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-Ceramic Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(11):920-925.

scholarly journals Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatment and Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Patrapan Juntavee ◽  
Hattanas Kumchai ◽  
Niwut Juntavee ◽  
Dan Nathanson
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Damage Index ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bonding Systems ◽  
Post Hoc

Objective. This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of metal brackets to machinable ceramics and veneering porcelain using different adhesive resins. Materials and methods. Machined ceramic specimens (10 × 10 × 2 mm) were prepared from Vitablocs mark II (Vita) and IPS e.max® CAD (Ivoclar). Layered porcelain fused to metal (IPS d.Sign®, Ivoclar) was used to fabricate PFM specimens (n = 60/group). Half of specimens were etched (9.6% HF, 15 sec), and the rest were nonetched. Three resin bonding systems were used for attaching metal brackets (Victory series™ APC II, 3M) to each group (n = 10): Transbond™ XT (3M), Light Bond™ (Reliance), or Blugloo™ (Ormco), all cured with LED curing unit (Bluephase G1600, Vivadent) for 50 s each. Specimens were immersed in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours prior to shear bond testing (Instron) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Debond surface of ceramic and bracket base was examined for failure mode (FM), Ceramic Damage Index (CDI), and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparisons were used to analyze the differences in bond strength. The chi-squared test was used to determine significance effect of FM, CDI, and ARI. Results. Significant differences in shear bond strength among group were found (p≤0.05) related to ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement. Conclusion. Bond strength of bracket to ceramic is affected by type of ceramic, resin cement, and ceramic surface conditioning. Etching ceramic surface enhanced ceramic-bracket bond strength. However, bond strengths in nontreated ceramic surface groups were still higher than bond strength required for bonding in orthodontic treatment.

Tensile bond strength of an adhesive resin cement to different alloys having various surface treatments

2009 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amara Abreu ◽  
Maria A. Loza ◽  
Augusto Elias ◽  
Siuli Mukhopadhyay ◽  
Stephen Looney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document