Fracture Patterns after Microtensile Bond Strength Testing of Zirconia with Different Surface Treatment and Different Veneering Techniques with and without Aging

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Tarek Salah Morsi ◽  
Ghada Abdel Fattah Abdel Sattar ◽  
Amina Mohamed Hamdy
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 8308
Author(s):  
Farid S. El-Askary ◽  
Sara A. Botros ◽  
Mutlu Özcan

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and storage time on immediate repair bond durability of methacrylate- and ormocer-based bulk fill composites. In total, 265 discs were divided into 32 groups (n = 8/group) according to: (1) Material: X-tra fil and Admira Fusion X-tra; (2) Surface treatment: oxygen inhibition; matrix; Futurabond M+; Silane/Futurabond M+; Admira Bond; Silane/Admira Bond; ceramic repair system; and Silane/Cimara bond; and (3) Storage time: 24 h and 6 months. Each disc received three micro-cylinders from the same material. Specimens were subjected to micro-shear bond strength testing either at 24 h or 6 months. Data were analyzed using ANOVA/Tukey’s test/Student t-test (p = 0.05). All experimental factors had significant effect on bond strength (p < 0.0001). Drop in bond strength was noticed in both materials after six months (p < 0.05), except for Admira Fusion X-tra treated with silane/cimara adhesive (p = 0.860). Both materials showed insignificant values with Admira bond either at 24 h or 6 months (p = 0.275 and p = 0.060, respectively). For other treatments, X-tra fil showed significantly higher values at 24 h and 6 months (p < 0.05). Ceramic repair system can be used to immediately repair both methacrylate- and ormocer-based composites.


2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 923-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato Cassio ROPERTO ◽  
Thiago Soares PORTO ◽  
Lisa LANG ◽  
Sorin TEICH ◽  
Sean WEBER ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 9p
Author(s):  
Reham S Saleh ◽  
Engie M Safwat

Objective: to compare the effect of three surface treatment protocols and two intermediate agents on repairing aged composite, regarding microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and mode of fracture, at two time intervals. Material and methods: Six-month aged microhybrid composite blocks, were randomly distributed into three groups, subjected to; Fine, Super Fine grit diamond burs or Erbium- Yag Laser surface treatment. Each block had both One Coat bond SL (Bond) and Brilliant Flow flowable composite (Flow) intermediate agents, alongside. Blocks were incrementally repaired using nanohybrid composite, cut into beams, then randomly subjected either immediately (IM) to µTBS test or after thermocycling (TC) for 5000 cycle. Mode of failure was determined using stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed through three-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. Kruskal Wallis test compared groups for failure mode analysis (?=0.05)Results: Super Fine grit showed the highest mean µTBS compared to control for both intermediate agents, IM and after TC at P<0.05. No difference between Fine grit and Laser application for all groups (P>0.05). IM, Bond showed the highest µTBS compared to TC, Flow for all tested groups. Beams roughened with Fine and Super Fine burs showed significantly lower adhesive failures than those roughened with Laser. Flow suffers significantly higher adhesive failure than those with Bond. For TC tested groups; beams with Super Fine bur and Bond showed significantly lower adhesive failure at P=0.029.Conclusions: Super Fine grit and Bond provide the highest µTBS and the least adhesive failure; moreover TC resulted in significant decrease in µTBS.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
DP Lise ◽  
A Van Ende ◽  
J De Munck ◽  
LCC Vieira ◽  
LN Baratieri ◽  
...  

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength to a composite and a polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM block after six-month artificial aging. Methods and Materials: Two types of CAD/CAM blocks (Cerasmart, GC; Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) were cut in slabs of 4-mm thickness, divided into six groups, and subjected to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: sandblasting (SB); group 3: SB + silane (Si); group 4: SB + Si + flowable composite (see below); group 5: 5% hydrofluoric acid etching (HF) + Si; and group 6: 37% phosphoric acid etching (H3PO4) + Si. Sections of the same group were luted together (n=3: 3 sandwich specimens/group) using a dual-cure self-adhesive cement for all groups, except for the sections of group 4 that were luted using a light-curing flowable composite. After three weeks of storage in 0.5% chloramine at 37°C, the sandwich specimens were sectioned in rectangular microspecimens and trimmed at the interface to a dumbbell shape (1.1-mm diameter). One half of the specimens was subjected to a microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test, and the other half was tested after six months of water storage (aging). Data were statistically analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model for the factors surface treatment, material type, and aging, together with their first-degree interactions (α=0.05). Results: The lowest bond strengths were obtained in the absence of any surface treatment (group 1), while the highest μTBSs were obtained when the surface was roughened by either SB or HF, this in combination with chemical adhesion through Si. Loss in bond strength was observed after six-month aging when either surface roughening or silanization, or both, were omitted. Conclusions: Both the composite and polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM blocks appeared equally bonding-receptive regardless of the surface treatment used. Creating a microretentive surface by either SB or HF, followed by chemical adhesion using Si, is mandatory to maintain the bond strength after six months.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document