Effects of Different Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin Nano Ceramic or Ceromer to Resin Cement

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on the micro-tensile bond strength (MTBS) of two different indirect restoration materials (resin nano ceramic CAD/CAM material [Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE]; ceromer material [Estenia C&B, Kuraray Medical]). Materials and Methods: Specimens were prepared from each test material in dimensions of 3×10×10 mm. The specimens were divided into five different surface treatment groups: group 1 (control [C]), no treatment; group 2 (acid etching [A]); group 3 (acid etching + universal adhesive [AA]); group 4 (sandblasting [S]); and group 5 (sandblasting + universal adhesive [SA]). The prepared specimens were cemented to composite parts (Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative, 3M ESPE) of the same size using dual-cure adhesive resin cement (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray Medical). A total, 100 bar-shaped specimens (6×1×1 mm) were cut using a low-speed diamond saw (n=10 in each group). The MTBS test was performed in all groups (Shimadzu AG-50 kNG, Kyoto, Japan, 1 mm/min). Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple comparison tests at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: The MTBS values were significantly influenced by the type of restorative material and surface treatment (p<0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the materials and surface treatments procedures (p<0.05). For Lava Ultimate and Estenia C&B materials, the highest MTBS value was obtained in the SA surface treatment (p<0.05) and the lowest MTBS value was obtained in the control groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: The application of silane-containing universal adhesive material after sandblasting was the ideal surface treatment for both materials.

Utilization of Er:YAG Laser in Retrieving and Reusing of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Monolithic Crowns in Natural Teeth: An In Vitro Study

“…These crowns, most frequently made of ceramic materials such as lithium disilicate or zirconia, are esthetically pleasing, with superior biocompatibility and physical properties as well as survival rates [5][6][7]. The crown material, especially lithium disilicate, can be bonded to the natural tooth abutment using acid etching and composite resin cement [8][9][10], while zirconia materials used to make these crowns are perhaps the strongest ceramic materials available in contemporary dentistry [11,12]. These physical strengths and bonding capabilities allow for long lasting restorations in the oral cavity.…”

Effects of laser modalities on shear bond strengths of composite superstructure to zirconia and PEEK infrastructures: an in vitro study

“…Researchers have investigated the effect of pretreatments on bond strength values with the mechanical tests. The most used measuring techniques are pull-out [50], SBS [51], or microtensile tests [52]. In this study, the SBS test was performed to compare the effect of laser treatments because of its advantages, such as the capacity of samples' standardization, easy preparation of the specimens, having clear test protocols, and rapidly analyzed test results [53].…”

Utilization of Er:YAG Laser in Retrieving and Reusing of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Monolithic Crowns in Natural Teeth: An <em>in Vitro </em>Study

“…[1][2][3][4] These crowns, most frequently made of ceramic materials such as lithium disilicate or zirconia, are esthetically pleasing, with superior biocompatibility and physical properties as well as survival rates. [5][6][7] The crown material, especially lithium disilicate, can be bonded to the natural tooth abutment using acid etching and composite resin cement, [8][9][10] while zirconia materials used to make these crowns belong to perhaps the strongest ceramic materials used in dentistry. [11,12] These physical strengths and bonding capabilities allow for long lasting restorations in the oral cavity.…”