In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Different Surface Treatments of a Hybrid Ceramic on the Microtensile Bond Strength to a Luting Resin Cement

Abstract

Please cite this article as follows: Motevasselian F, Amiri Z, Chiniforush N, Mirzaei M, Thompson V. In vitro evaluation of the effect of different surface treatments of a hybrid ceramic on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. Abstract Introduction:The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of different surface treatments of a hybrid ceramic, Vita Enamic, on the micro-tensile bond strength (µ-TBS) to resin cement. Methods: Ten blocks (3×10×8 mm) were retrieved from the original blocks and divided into 5 groups according to the different surface treatments performed: Groups 1: 35% acid phosphoric for 60 seconds (PA); group 2: Sandblasting with 50 µm Al 2 O 3 particles for 10 seconds (SB); groups 3: 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds (HF), group 4: The Er:YAG laser (2 W, 10 Hz) (ER1), group 5: The Er:YAG laser (3 W, 10 Hz) (ER2). All treated surfaces were salinized and the blocks with similar surface treatments were bonded together using a dual-cured resin cement and light-cured. After 24-hour storage in water, the blocks were cut into beams (1 mm 2 ). Half of the specimens in each group (n=16) were tested immediately and the rest were subjected to thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C for 6000 cycles before the µ-TBS test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests and the significance level was set at 0.05. The failure mode was evaluated by using a stereomicroscope. Results: The µ-TBS was clearly influenced by surface treatment methods (P < 0.001) and thermocycling significantly decreased the bond strength values in all groups (P = 0.007). The highest value (66.07 MPa ± 11.3) was obtained for the HF groups with no thermocycling and the lowest values were observed in the laser groups with no significant difference among different irradiation parameters. Adhesive failure was mainly observed in the PA and SB groups while mixed failure was predominantly shown in the laser and HF groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that surface treatment of VE with HF and salinization could improve the bond strength to a dual-cured resin cement, and Er:YAG laser irradiation with the evaluated parameters did not promote the adhesion of the resin cement to VE.

Shear Bond Strength of a Direct Resin Composite to CAD-CAM Composite Blocks: Relative Contribution of Micromechanical and Chemical Block Surface Treatment

“…Numerous studies have attempted to find an optimal sandblasting protocol by varying the pressure or duration of treatment. The optimal treatment would be sandblasting between 1 and 3 bar for 5 to 60 s, depending on the study and the type of composite [ 32 , 33 ]. However, it has been shown that sandblasting may damage the surface of composite CAM-CAM blocks if the procedures (pressure, duration, type of abrasive particle) are not optimized [ 34 ].…”

The effects of different surface treatments on the shear bond strengths of two dual-cure resin cements to CAD/CAM restorative materials

“…HF acid application resulted in the highest bond strength values. 19 Motevasselian et al 6 tested the effectiveness of Er: YAG laser, HF acid, Al 2 O 3 sandblasting, and phosphoric acid applications. The highest bond strength values between VE-resin cement were observed in the HF acid group, while the lowest bond strength values were observed in the Er: YAG laser group.…”

“…Current studies on the subject have conflicting findings. [5][6][7] Manso and Carvalho 8 found that since resin-matrix ceramics are the latest to be introduced to the dental market, limited studies have been performed for the optimal clinical protocol regarding the surface treatments for ideal bonding and the results were also material-dependent.…”

Evaluation of the time needed for the debonding of two ceramic materials at two thicknesses using two laser powers of Erbium Chromium: YSGG Laser “A Comparative In-Vitro Study”

“…This could be attributed to the liability of low energy power output to result in a less defined penetration zone of the resin cement, where the outermost layer of the ceramic remains interlocked with the resin cement; leaving the underlying ceramic intact and thus causing less energy transmission. 18,21 Type III cohesive failure within the cement in all of the debonded specimens could be attributed to the ability of laser to soften the outer surface of the resin cement and targeting the water content of the cement, causing micro explosions within the water content of the cement. These finding corelates with Karagoz et al who stated that cohesive failure was found within the cement layer as the debonding laser procedure degrades the resin cement without damaging either the tooth structure or the veneer.…”