“…The results of a study conducted by Nakhaei et al [ 14 ], which examined the SBS of different cements to cp-Ti, demonstrated Panavia F.2 as the best choice for bonding to cp-Ti. In another study, Nakhaei et al [ 26 ] investigated the SBS of different bonding protocols to commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) through the use of two universal adhesives, including Scotchbond Universal (SU; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Alloy Primer (AP; Kuraray). Their results confirmed that the application of AP, followed by SU, was the most superior bonding to cp-Ti and contained the ability to endure the limited thermal aging.…”
This study attempted to investigate the effect of sandblasting and H2O2 treatments on the microshear bond strength of two commercially available resin cements. A total of 90 cube-shaped specimens of commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) were divided into two groups of Panavia and MHA cements (n = 45). Samples of the Panavia group were randomly divided into three subgroups of 15 samples, including subgroups (no treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and immersion in 35% hydrogen peroxide solution with halogen light). Once the treatment was completed, Panavia V5 was applied on the cp-Ti surface by a Tygon tube. The 45 specimens of the MHA cement group were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 15) similarly to the Panavia group. Then, the MHA was applied on the surface of cp-Ti. A universal testing machine was used to measure and examine the microshear bond strength of cement to cp-Ti subsequent to the step of thermocycling. According to results, in the Panavia cement group, the SBS of sandblasting treatment was significantly higher than that of the H2O2 treatment subgroup (p < 0.05), which displayed a significantly higher SBS than that of the no-treatment subgroup (p < 0.001). In regard to the MHA group, the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the sandblasting treatment subgroup (p < 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences between the SBS of the no treatment and H2O2 treatment subgroups (p = 0.35). Considering the comparison between Panavia and MHA cases, there were no significant differences observed among the no-treatment subgroups (p = 0.34), as well as the sandblasting treatment subgroups (p = 0.67), while the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup in Panavia cement was higher than that of the H2O2 subgroup in MHA cement (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in both Panavia V5 and MHA cements, sandblasting treatment could improve the bond strength between the titanium surface. However, H2O2 treatment proved to be capable of enhancing the bond strength of Panavia V5 cement without causing any positive effects on the bond strength of MHA cement.
“…The results of a study conducted by Nakhaei et al [ 14 ], which examined the SBS of different cements to cp-Ti, demonstrated Panavia F.2 as the best choice for bonding to cp-Ti. In another study, Nakhaei et al [ 26 ] investigated the SBS of different bonding protocols to commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) through the use of two universal adhesives, including Scotchbond Universal (SU; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Alloy Primer (AP; Kuraray). Their results confirmed that the application of AP, followed by SU, was the most superior bonding to cp-Ti and contained the ability to endure the limited thermal aging.…”
This study attempted to investigate the effect of sandblasting and H2O2 treatments on the microshear bond strength of two commercially available resin cements. A total of 90 cube-shaped specimens of commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) were divided into two groups of Panavia and MHA cements (n = 45). Samples of the Panavia group were randomly divided into three subgroups of 15 samples, including subgroups (no treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and immersion in 35% hydrogen peroxide solution with halogen light). Once the treatment was completed, Panavia V5 was applied on the cp-Ti surface by a Tygon tube. The 45 specimens of the MHA cement group were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 15) similarly to the Panavia group. Then, the MHA was applied on the surface of cp-Ti. A universal testing machine was used to measure and examine the microshear bond strength of cement to cp-Ti subsequent to the step of thermocycling. According to results, in the Panavia cement group, the SBS of sandblasting treatment was significantly higher than that of the H2O2 treatment subgroup (p < 0.05), which displayed a significantly higher SBS than that of the no-treatment subgroup (p < 0.001). In regard to the MHA group, the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the sandblasting treatment subgroup (p < 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences between the SBS of the no treatment and H2O2 treatment subgroups (p = 0.35). Considering the comparison between Panavia and MHA cases, there were no significant differences observed among the no-treatment subgroups (p = 0.34), as well as the sandblasting treatment subgroups (p = 0.67), while the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup in Panavia cement was higher than that of the H2O2 subgroup in MHA cement (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in both Panavia V5 and MHA cements, sandblasting treatment could improve the bond strength between the titanium surface. However, H2O2 treatment proved to be capable of enhancing the bond strength of Panavia V5 cement without causing any positive effects on the bond strength of MHA cement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.