Effect of surface treatments on bond durability of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics: An in vitro study

Wang, Yiqiao; Hui, Ruizong; Gao, Li; Ma, Yuanyuan; Wu, Xiangnan; Meng, Yukun; Hao, Zhichao

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.09.014

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies showed equal results of bonding after using Cojet and clear ll as that by Galal et al in 2022, but this was with zirconia oxide based ceramics. [20] But opposing our results Wang et al in 2022 found that among many methods of repair, one of them is the Cojet ; the hydro uoric acid etching followed by the universal adhesive showed the best bond strength results [25]. Also approving our results, some studies as that by Schwenter et al in 2016 who found that the hydro uoric acid etching and silane application might be a cause to decrease bond strength due to some surface changes [21].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Assessment of two repairing techniques for a novel lithium disilicate based ceramic

Galal,

Hamza,

Elhotieby

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This research was done to evaluate the bond strength using two repair methods with lithium disilicate ceramic. Methods Cojet and Clearfil repair methods were used to repair lithium disilicate ceramic. The ceramic was sliced into slices before sintering (30 samples). Vita Ambria (Vita, Zahnfabrik, Germany) ceramic was used, surface treated with the 2 repair systems then bonded to composite. Samples are stored, thermocycling was done then shear loading was done until fracture. Bond strength values were collected and statistically analyzed. Results showed that the Cojet surface treatment showed significantly more bond strength (14.43 ± 1.46 Mpa) than the clearfil surface treatment showing (4.16 ± 1.33) as indicated by paired t-test p ≤ 0.05. Conclusions bond strength between composite and the ceramic Vita Ambria is better with using Cojet surface treatment than with using the clearfil system.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Assessment of two repairing techniques for a novel lithium disilicate based ceramic

Galal,

Hamza,

Elhotieby

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We found that the bond strength in both ceramic and metal brackets for 5YTZP was not significantly improved. Wang Y et al [ 34 ] recorded similar results of higher bond strength after HFA etching and universal adhesive treatment in glass ceramics groups, including LDS-CAD and ZLS ceramics in contrast to zirconia. Smielak B et al[ 35 ] suggested a 9.5% HF concentration, and 15 min etching duration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Influence of different surface treatment on bonding of metal and ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials

Haralur,

Alqahtani,

Shiban

et al. 2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Developing efficient bonding techniques for orthodontic brackets and all-ceramic materials continues to pose a clinical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strengths (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets to various all-ceramic CAD-CAM materials, such as lithium disilicate CAD (LDS-CAD), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (ZLS), and 5YTZP zirconia after different surface treatments and thermal cycling. Materials and methods The samples were divided into two groups to be bonded with ceramic and metal lower incisor brackets. Each group was subdivided into a control group devoid of any surface treatment, 10% HF acid (HFA) etching, ceramic etch & prime (MEP), Al2O3 air abrasion, and medium grit diamond bur roughening. After surface treatment, brackets were bonded with composite resin cement, thermal cycled, and tested for shear bond strength. The failed surfaces were evaluated with a digital microscope to analyse the type of failure. The data were statistically analysed using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests at p < 0.05. Results The highest mean bond strengths were found with HFA etching in LDS-CAD (13.17 ± 0.26 MPa) and ZLS (12.85 0.52 MPa). Diamond bur recorded the lowest mean bond strength roughening across all the ceramic groups. There were significant differences in mean shear bond values per surface treatment (p < 0.001) and ceramic materials. Conclusion Among the surface treatment protocols evaluated, HFA etching and MEP surface treatment resulted in enhanced bond strength of both ceramic and metal brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials.

show abstract

“…Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate consists of crystals of lithium metasilicate (Li 2 SO 3 ), lithium orthophosphates (Li 3 PO 4 ), and a glassy matrix with homogeneous dispersed zirconia particles (10 wt%). The crystal size in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics (0.5–1.0 mm) is about 4–6 times smaller than in lithium disilicate ceramics (2.0–3.0 mm), which contributes to the higher glass content of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramics (50%) than lithium disilicate ceramics (about 30%) [ 21 ]. The unaffected areas after HF etching are lithium crystals in lithium-disilicate-reinforced ceramics, alumina crystals in feldspar ceramics, and lithium crystals and zirconium particles in zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the silica content of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic (56–64%) is similar to that of feldspathic and lithium disilicate glass ceramics, the present study was conducted because the increased zirconium ratio to strengthen glass ceramic suggests that the sensitivity of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics to surface treatments may vary compared to glass ceramics. Although the bond strength of zirconia-reinforced silicate ceramics after different surface treatments have been investigated in the literature, the reports are controversial [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the effect of HF acid etching, sandblasting, or silica coating on micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) between two types of resin cements and feldspathic, lithium disilicate, and zirconia-reinforced CAD/CAM glass ceramics, which are the most commonly used CAD/CAM blocks for indirect restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to CAD/CAM Glass Ceramics with Various Surface Treatments

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the effect of acid etching, sandblasting, or silica coating on the micro-shear bond strength of dual-cured resin cements to computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) glass ceramic materials. Feldspathic, lithium disilicate, and zirconia-reinforced CAD/CAM ceramics were divided into four groups: control group (C), no surface treatment; hydrofluoric (HF) group, 5% HF acid-etched; sandblasting (SB) group, abraded with 50 µm aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particles; silica-coated (CJ) group, abraded with 30 µm silica-modified Al2O3 particles. Roughness values were obtained by using a profilometer. The cements were condensed on the surface-treated specimens and a micro-shear bond test was conducted. The ceramic material (p < 0.001) and surface treatment type (p < 0.001) significantly affected the micro-shear bond strength values. HF acid etching can be recommended for the surface pretreatment of feldspathic, lithium disilicate, and zirconia-reinforced CAD/CAM ceramics. Better bond strengths can be obtained with HF acid etching than with sandblasting and silica coating.

show abstract

Effect of surface treatments on bond durability of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics: An in vitro study

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

Assessment of two repairing techniques for a novel lithium disilicate based ceramic

Assessment of two repairing techniques for a novel lithium disilicate based ceramic

Influence of different surface treatment on bonding of metal and ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials

Comparison of the Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to CAD/CAM Glass Ceramics with Various Surface Treatments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About