The Effect of Different Combinations of Surface Treatments and Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength Between Titanium Alloy and Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
Afaf Alkhadashi ◽  
Melahat Güven ◽  
Funda Erol ◽  
Gülhan Yıldırım
Keyword(s):  
Titanium Alloy ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Bonding Agents

scholarly journals Surface Treatment Effect on Shear Bond Strength between Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siripan Simasetha ◽  
Awiruth Klaisiri ◽  
Tool Sriamporn ◽  
Kraisorn Sappayatosok ◽  
Niyom Thamrongananskul
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ceramic Bond

Abstract Objective The study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) and resin cement (RC) using different surface treatments. Materials and Methods LDGC blocks (Vintage LD Press) were prepared, etched with 4.5% hydrofluoric acid, and randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10), depending on the surface treatments. The groups were divided as follows: 1) no surface treatment (control), 2) Silane Primer (KS), 3) Signum Ceramic Bond I (SGI), 4) Signum Ceramic Bond I/Signum Ceramic Bond II (SGI/SGII), 5) experimental silane (EXP), 6) experimental silane/Signum Ceramic Bond II (EXP/SGII), and 7) Experimental/Adper Scotchbond Multi-purpose Adhesive (EXP/ADP). The specimens were cemented to resin composite blocks with resin cement and stored in water at 37 °C for 24 hours. The specimens underwent 5,000 thermal cycles and were subjected to the SBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under the stereo microscope. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed with Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Results The highest mean SBS showed in group EXP/ADP (45.49 ± 3.37 MPa); however, this was not significantly different from group EXP/SGII (41.38 ± 2.17 MPa) (p ≥ 0.05). The lowest SBS was shown in the control group (18.36 ± 0.69 MPa). This was not significantly different from group KS (20.17 ± 1.10 MPa) (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions The different surface treatments significantly affected the SBS value between LDGC and RC. The application of pure silane coupling agent with or without the application of an adhesive improved the SBS value and bond quality.

scholarly journals Different bonding agents effect on adhesive bond strength: lithium disilicate glass ceramic

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Daniel Septímio LANZA ◽  
Walisson Arthuso VASCONCELLOS ◽  
Giovani Lana Peixoto de MIRANDA ◽  
Rogéli Tibúrcio Ribeiro da Cunha PEIXOTO ◽  
Lincoln Dias LANZA
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Bond ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Polished Surface ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Adhesive Bond Strength

Abstract Introduction The silanization of the ceramic surface prior to applying the adhesive and/or resinous materials plays an important role in bond strength. Nowadays, a new family of adhesive systems has been introduced into the market, aiming to simplify the technique of adhesive procedures during cementation. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of different bonding agents containing silane and primer on Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic (LD) surface by shear bond strength tests. Material and method 130 LD ceramic blocks were included in acrylic resin, polished and washed in ultrasound for 10 minutes. The specimens were divided into 2 groups according to surface treatment: Polished Surface (PS); Hydrofluoric Acid 9.5% - 20s (HF). Each group was divided into 5 subgroups (n = 13) according to bonding agent type: metallic primer containing MDP (ZPrimePlus, Bisco Inc); two traditional silanes (MonobondPlus, IvoclarVivadent / Porcelain Prime, Bisco Inc.); mixture of silane and resin (Kerr Silane, Kerr); mixture of silane and universal adhesive (Single-bond Universal, 3M Espe). The specimens were mounted in a standard device for shear testing (UltradentBonding Assembly), cemented with dual resin cement (RelyX UltimateTM, 3M Espe.) and photo-polymerized for 20s. The samples were tested after 24 hours and 3 months of storage in distilled water at ±36 °C. The data were analyzed by 3-Way Anova and Tukey's test (α = 5%). Result Shear bond strength (SBS) was significantly influenced by surface treatment, bonding agent used and storage (p <0.001). Conclusion Adequate adhesive bond strength to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic can be obtained with traditional silanes, combined with HF acid pretreatment surface.

scholarly journals Improving shear bond strength between feldspathic porcelain and zirconia substructure with lithium disilicate glass-ceramic liner

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamolporn WATTANASIRMKIT ◽  
Viritpon SRIMANEEPONG ◽  
Kanchana KANCHANATAWEWAT ◽  
Naruporn MONMATURAPOJ ◽  
Pasutha THUNYAKITPISAL ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Ceramic Liner ◽  
Feldspathic Porcelain

scholarly journals An in-vitro analysis of shear bond strength of resin based luting cements to lithium disilicate glass ceramic

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-27
Author(s):  
K Premnath ◽  
◽  
Nagaranjani Prakash ◽  
Mohammed Ajmal B ◽  
Syed Ahmed Raheel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Vitro Analysis ◽  
In Vitro Analysis

scholarly journals The Effect of Different Surface Treatment Protocols on the Shear Bond Strength to Repressed Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amr El-Etreby ◽  
Osama AlShanti ◽  
Gihan El-Nagar
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramics ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
X Ray

Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of repressing and different surface treatment protocols on the shear bond strength of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. Material and Methods: A total of 52 lithium disilicate glass-ceramic discs (IPS emax Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) were fabricated using the heat-press technique. The discs were divided into two groups; group (P): discs fabricated from new e.max ingots (n=26), group (R): discs fabricated from reused e.max buttons (n=26). Each group was subdivided into subgroup (E): discs were etched with hydrofluoric acid (9.5%) (n=13), subgroup (S): discs were air-abraded with 110 µm alumina particles. All specimens were subjected to X-ray Diffraction analysis, Scanning Electron Microscope, Energy Dispersive X-Ray, Thermo-Cycling, and Shear Bond Strength Testing. Results: Repressed Etched subgroup (RE) recorded the statistically highest shear bond strength value, followed by the Pressed Etched subgroup (PE), while the statistically lowest shear bond strength value was recorded for the Pressed Air-Abraded subgroup (PS) and Repressed Air-Abraded subgroup (RS). Conclusion: Repressing the leftover buttons for the construction of new lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations has no adverse effect on the bond strength of the resin cement to the ceramic. Hydrofluoric acid surface treatment improves the shear bond strength and durability of resin cement bond to both pressed and repressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Air-abrasion cannot be considered as a reliable surface treatment when bonding to lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. Keywords Heat pressed; Lithium disilicate glass-ceramics; Repressing; Shear bond strength; Surface treatment.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Repaired Ceramic-Metal Restorations Using Different Bonding Agents with Different Surface Treatments

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-09
Author(s):  
Ibrahim M. Hamouda ◽  
Enas M. Elddainony ◽  
Mosaad A. ELgabrouny ◽  
Fahim M. El-Shamy
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Chromium Alloy ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Nickel Chromium ◽  
Bonding Systems

Background: Fracture of ceramic-metal restorations is a major problem facing the dentists and the patients. There are several bonding systems currently available in the market to repair the fractured ceramic-metal restorations inside or outside the oral cavity. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test the efficiency of repairing of metal-ceramic restorations using different bonding systems with different surface treatments. This efficiency was tested through the conduction of shear bond strength of the composite bonded to the porcelain and to nickel-chromium alloy using three different bonding agents (Excite, AdheSE, and Prompt L-Pop) with four different surface treatments (sandblasting and enchant, diamond stone roughening, sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid etching, or without surface treatment). Materials and Methods: A total of 120 specimens were prepared, 60 specimens from porcelain and 60 specimens from nickel-chromium alloy. Each group was divided into three equal subgroups, 20 specimens each, corresponding to the 3 bonding agents used. Each subgroup was further subdivided into four subgroups, 5 specimens each, corresponding to the surface treatment procedures. Bonding agents applied over all specimens and cured, followed by application of a micro-hybrid light-cured composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Thermal cycling was done for all specimens between 5°C and 55°C for 1000 cycles with a 10-second dwell time. Shear bond strength test was conducted using a universal testing machine ata cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results: The highest shear bond strength value recorded for the porcelain specimens bonded with Excite bonding agent with surface treatment sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid etching. In metal groups, the AdheSE bonding agent showed the highest shear bond strength value with the same surface treatment of the porcelain specimens. It was observed that sandblasting followed by hydrofluoric acid etching produced the most effective treatment method for porcelain and metal surfaces. Conclusion: The most effective technique for repairing metal ceramic restoration was sandblasting with hydrofluoric acid etching as surface treatment together with AdheSE or Excite bonding agents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document