Effect of surface treatments on the spreading velocity of simplified adhesive systems

Abstract

Objectives:To determine the roughness of glass surfaces submitted to different treatments and to correlate it with the spreading velocity of two adhesive systems.Materials and Methods:Glass slides were used as substrates to evaluate the spreading velocity of Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT adhesive systems. Six different surface treatments were compared: 1) no treatment; 2) silanization (SL); 3) sandblasting (SB); 4) SB + SL; 5) 10% hydrofluoric acid treatment (HF); 6) HF + SL. Before and after treatments, surface roughness was measured by a profilometer (Ra, μm). Drop volumes (10 μl) of the adhesive systems were deposited onto substrates with a micropipette to observe materials spreading during 30s. Data were expressed in mm/s as spreading velocity. Statistical significances among groups were analyzed using one-way and two-way-ANOVA designs and the SNK test.Results:Significant differences in spreading velocity were found between materials (p < 0.001) and among treatments (p < 0.001). Silanization decreased the spreading velocity for both adhesives in comparison to groups where it was not performed (p < 0.05). Differences in roughness were found only for SB surfaces that were rougher than the others (p < 0.05). Silanization decreased the roughness of SB surfaces (p < 0.05). Linear regression did not indicate any correlation between spreading velocity and roughness (R = 0.173).Conclusions:Although surface treatments yielded different roughness, they did not provide differences in the spreading velocity of the simplified bonding systems studied. Silanization decreased bonding systems' spreading velocities.

Influence of different surface treatments of nickel chrome metal alloy and types of metal primer monomers on the tensile bond strength of a resin cement

“…Additionally, air abrasion removes the possible impurities, such as: oil, unfavorable oxides, smear product, and other contaminants, from the surface to improve cement wettability specially when proceeded with priming procedure (Gargari et al, 2010, Haneda et al, 2009, Pazinatto et al, 2006, Rodríguez et al, 2010, Yucel et al, 2018). Freitas and Francisconi (2004) showed that air abrasion group with 100 µm aluminum oxide presented the highest values of bond strength, while the group that had no surface treatment presented low values.…”

Examination of bond strength and mechanical properties of Y-TZP zirconia ceramics with different surface modifications

“…Mechanical or chemical surface treatments promote an increase in the porosity and roughness of dental ceramics, improving wettability 36,37) . Rougher surfaces have wider contact areas available for bonding, and also provide for an increased surface free energy in comparison to flatter or smoother surfaces 34,35) .…”

Wetting ability of an acetone/based etch rinse adhesive after NaOCl-treatment

“…The removal of collagen results in dentin surface similar to those of etched enamel ( 17 ). Rougher surfaces have wider contact areas available for bonding, and also provide an increased surface free energy in comparison to flatter or smoother ones ( 24 ).…”