scholarly journals Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Cement to Novel CAD/CAM Materials as a Function of Surface Treatment and Aging

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
DP Lise ◽  
A Van Ende ◽  
J De Munck ◽  
LCC Vieira ◽  
LN Baratieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Group 1

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.

scholarly journals Effect of Ozone Application on the Resin-dentin Microtensile Bond Strength

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
PCF Rodrigues ◽  
JB Souza ◽  
CJ Soares ◽  
LG Lopes ◽  
C Estrela
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Sodium Ascorbate ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Caries Treatment ◽  
Antioxidant Agents ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

SUMMARY When ozone is used during caries treatment, bond strength can be compromised by the release of oxygen. The use of antioxidant agents neutralizes the free oxygen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ozone and sodium ascorbate on resin-dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS). Forty human third molars were divided into four groups: Group 1, not treated with ozone; Group 2, ozone application followed by acid etching; Group 3, acid etching followed by ozone application; and Group 4, ozone and application of sodium ascorbate. Bonded beams (1.0 mm2) were tested under tension (0.5 mm min−1). The μTBS values were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey test (p=0.05). All beams that fractured were analyzed under stereomicroscopy (40×). Group 1 had significantly higher μTBS values than Group 2 or 3. The μTBS values of Groups 1 and 4 were similar and higher than those of Group 2. The use of ozone in Group 2 resulted in lower values of μTBS in all conditions evaluated. The predominant failure mode was adhesive. The application of ozone decreased the μTBS of the dentin-composite resin interface. These values were reversed when compared with Groups 1 and 2 when sodium ascorbate was used.

scholarly journals Evaluation of shear bond strength of composite to porcelain according to surface treatment

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Minami Kussano ◽  
Gerson Bonfante ◽  
José Gilmar Batista ◽  
João Henrique Nogueira Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Force Load ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

This study evaluated the shear bond strength of porcelain/composite using 40 metal + porcelain + composite cylindrical specimens divided into 4 groups, according to porcelain surface treatment: 1) no treatment, 2) mechanical retentions performed with diamond burs, 3) etching with phosphoric acid+silane, and 4) etching with hydrofluoric acid+silane. After being stored in distilled water at room temperature for one week, the specimens were submitted to a shear force (load) and the data were analyzed statistically (ANOVA). The means (in Mpa) of the groups were: 4.71 (group 1); 4.81 (group 2); 11.76 (group 3); 11.07 (group 4). There were no statistically significant differences between groups 1 and 2 and between groups 3 and 4.

scholarly journals Assessment the Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets to CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Composite and Interpenetrating Network Composite after Different Surface Treatments

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Mehmet Özarslan ◽  
Özlem Üstün ◽  
Ulviye Sebnem Buyukkaplan ◽  
Çağatay Barutcigil ◽  
Nurullah Türker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Interpenetrating Network ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
New Generation

Adult orthodontics may confront problems related to the bonding performance of orthodontic brackets to new generation restorative materials used for crown or laminate restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to two new generation CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite after different surface treatments. Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, hydrofluoric acid (9%), sandblasting (50 μm Al2O3), and silane were applied to the surfaces of 120 CAD/CAM specimens with 2 mm thickness and then ceramic brackets were bonded to the treated surfaces of the specimens. Bond strength was evaluated using the shear bond strength test. According to the results, CAD/CAM block types and surface treatment methods have significant effects on shear bond strength. The lowest bond strength values were found in the specimens treated with silane (3.35 ± 2.09 MPa) and highest values were found in the specimens treated with sandblast (8.92 ± 2.77 MPa). Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid surface treatment led to the most durable bonds for the two types of CAD/CAM blocks in the present study. In conclusion, different surface treatments affect the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to CAD/CAM interpenetrating network composite and nanoceramic composite. Among the evaluated treatments, sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid application resulted in sufficient bonding strength to ceramic brackets for both of the CAD/CAM materials.

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatment of prefabricated teeth on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 47-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Cumerlato ◽  
Eduardo Martinelli de Lima ◽  
Leandro Berni Osorio ◽  
Eduardo Gonçalves Mota ◽  
Luciane Macedo de Menezes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effects of grinding, drilling, sandblasting, and ageing prefabricated teeth (PfT) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets, as well as the effects of surface treatments on the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Methods: One-hundred-ninety-two PfT were divided into four groups (n = 48): Group 1, no surface treatment was done; Group 2, grinding was performed with a cylindrical diamond bur; Group 3, two drillings were done with a spherical diamond bur; Group 4, sandblasting was performed with 50-µm aluminum oxide. Before the experiment, half of the samples stayed immersed in distilled water at 37oC for 90 days. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and shear strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine. SBS were compared by surface treatment and by ageing with two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. ARI scores were compared between surface treatments with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test. Results: Surface treatments on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets (p< 0.01), result not observed with ageing (p= 0.45). Groups II, III, and IV showed higher SBS and greater ARI than the Group 1 (p< 0.05). SBS was greater in the groups 3 and 4 (drilling, sandblasting) than in the Group 2 (grinding) (p< 0.05). SBS and ARI showed a positive correlation (Spearman’s R2= 0.57; p< 0.05). Conclusion: Surface treatment on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets, however ageing did not show any relevance. Sandblasting and drilling showed greater SBS than grinding. There was a positive correlation between SBS and ARI.

Comparison of Bond Strength of Monolithic CAD-CAM Materials to Resin Cement Using Different Surface Treatment Methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-127
Author(s):  
Sevki Cinar ◽  
Bike Altan ◽  
Gokhan Akgungor
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Lithium Silicate ◽  
Treatment Methods ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Hybrid Ceramic ◽  
Silicate Ceramic

Objective: To compare the bond strength of monolithic CAD-CAM materials to resin cement using different surface treatment methods. Materials and Methods: Lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e-max CAD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (Vita Suprinity), resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate), and hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) were used. Five groups of CAD-CAM blocks were treated as follows: control (C), HF etching (HF), HF etching + silanization (HF + S), sandblasting (SB), and sandblasting + silanization (SB + S). After surface treatments, SEM analyses were conducted. Specimens were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (Theracem) and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured, and failure types were categorized. Results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test. Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between SBS values obtained for different surface treatments and CAD-CAM block types ( P < .001). Among the CAD-CAM materials, the highest SBS was reported in the HF + S group for Vita Enamic. Although IPS e.max CAD, Vita Suprinity, and Vita Enamic showed higher bond strength when treated with HF + S, Lava Ultimate has the highest bond strength value when treated with SB + S. Conclusions: The bond strength of CAD-CAM materials was influenced by surface treatment. Additionally, silanization significantly improved the bond strength of all materials except Lava Ultimate.

Deproteinizing Agents as an Effective Enamel Bond Enhancer-An in Vitro Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 280-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pallavi Hasija ◽  
Vinod Sachdev ◽  
Shivani Mathur ◽  
Rishi Rath
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Sodium Hypochlorite ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 1

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different deproteinizing agents on shear bond strength of composite to primary teeth enamel. Study Design: Forty sound primary molars divided in 4 groups of 10 teeth each. In control group 1, enamel was etched for 60 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid and rinsed with water. Group 2: after acid etching deproteinizing agent 5 % sodium hypochlorite was applied for 60 seconds and rinsed. Group 3: after acid etching deproteinizing agent papain gel was applied for 60 seconds and rinsed. Group 4: after acid etching deproteinizing agent bromelain gel applied for 60 seconds and rinsed. Following this, bonding agent was applied to treated enamel surface and composite resin disc were build. Samples were then tested for shear bond strength using Universal Testing Machine. Results: Mean SBS was highest for group 4 and lowest for group 1. No statistically significant difference (p value &gt;0.05) was found between all the four groups. Conclusion: Among deproteinizing agents, deproteinization when carried out with bromelain gel and sodium hypochlorite showed effective bond strength as compared to papain.

scholarly journals Structural and Morphological Evaluation of Presintered Zirconia following Different Surface Treatments

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasan Skienhe ◽  
Roland Habchi
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Phase Transformation ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Ceramic Powder ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Morphological Evaluation

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on roughness, grain size, and phase transformation of presintered zirconia. Materials and methods Surface treatments included airborne particle abrasion (APA) before and after sintering with different particles shape, size, and pressure (50 μm Al2O3, 50 μm glass beads, and ceramic powder). Thirty-five square-shaped presintered yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramic slabs (Zenostar ZR bridge, Wieland) were prepared (4 mm height × 10 mm width × 10 mm length) and polished with silicon carbide grit papers #800, 1000, 1200, 1500, and 2000 to ensure identical initial roughness. Specimens were divided into five groups according to surface treatment: group I (control): no surface treatment; group II: APA 50 μm Al2O3 after sintering; group III: APA 50 μm Al2O3 particles before sintering; group IV: APA 50 μm glass bead particles before sintering; and group V: APA ceramic powder before sintering. Specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses, and tested for shear bond strength (SBS). Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc tests for multiple comparisons Tukey's test (α ≥ 0.05). Results Air abrasion before sintering significantly increased the surface roughness when compared with groups I and III. The highest tetragonal to monoclinic (t-m) phase transformation (0.07%) was observed in group III, and a reverse transformation was observed in presintered groups (0.01%). Regarding bond strength, there was a significant difference between APA procedures pre- and postsintering. Conclusion Air abrasion before sintering is a valuable method for increasing surface roughness and SBS. The abrasive particles’ size and type used before sintering had a little effect on phase transformation. Clinical significance Air abrasion before sintering could be supposed to be an alternative surface treatment method to air abrasion after sintering. How to cite this article Skienhe H, Habchi R, Ounsi HF, Ferrari M, Salameh Z. Structural and Morphological Evaluation of Presintered Zirconia following Different Surface Treatments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(2):156-165.

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Repaired Aged Silorane Resin Composite

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Palasuk ◽  
JA Platt ◽  
SD Cho ◽  
JA Levon ◽  
DT Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Acid Treatment ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Control Failure

SUMMARY Objective: This laboratory study compared the repaired microtensile bond strengths of aged silorane resin composite using different surface treatments and either silorane or methacrylate resin composite. Methods: One hundred eight silorane resin composite blocks (Filtek LS) were fabricated and aged by thermocycling between 8°C and 48°C (5000 cycles). A control (solid resin composite) and four surface treatment groups (no treatment, acid treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and diamond bur abrasion) were tested (N=12 blocks, 108 beams/group). Each treatment group was randomly divided in half and repaired with either silorane resin composite (LS adhesive) or methacrylate resin composite (Filtek Z250/Single Bond Plus). After 24 hours in 37°C distilled water, microtensile bond strength testing was performed using a non-trimming technique. Surface topography after surface treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure mode was examined using optical microscopy (50×). Results: Weibull-distribution survival analysis revealed that aluminum oxide sandblasting followed by silorane or methacrylate resin composite and acid treatment with methacrylate resin composite provided insignificant differences from the control (p&gt;0.05). All other groups were significantly lower than the control. Failure was primarily adhesive in all groups. Conclusion: Aluminum oxide sandblasting produced microtensile bond strength not different from the cohesive strength of silorane resin composite. After aluminum oxide sandblasting, aged silorane resin composite can be repaired with either silorane resin composite with LS system adhesive or methacrylate resin composite with methacrylate dental adhesive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document