One-step surface conditioning of two glass-ceramics: Resin bond durability

Prochnow, Catina; Prado, Mayara Colpo; Marchionatti, Ana Maria Estivalete; Wandscher, Vinícius Felipe; Baldissara, Paolo; Valandro, Luiz Felipe

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.128

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 The results of the present study have recommended and indicated lower adhesion strength values when a one-step conditioning is used for ceramic surface as compared to the two-step conditioning system. Lower adhesion strength values with the one-step conditioning system were also reported by Prochnow et al 20 The glassy phase in the ceramic is etched by using prime liquid and Monoband Etch for creating low surface roughness. Siqueira et al 1 have indicated that the one-step conditioning system is used for the glassy phase when the ceramic surface was etched.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…A study by Prochnow et al 20 also reported lower adhesion strength values with the one-step conditioning system. This is because of the weak acidic salt of hydrofluoric acid in the ammonium poly-fluoride (poly-NH 4 HF 2 ) that the one-step conditioning system Monobond TM Etch and Prime.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The wettability of the ceramic surface for the application of resin composites and silane-coupling agents is affected by this increase in surface roughness. 20,21 The importance of adequately porous surface is observed for the durable cementation of both Fd and Ld ceramic indirect restorations. 24 Clean surfaces, the use of low-viscosity adhesives, cements, and suitable wetting are the other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of bonding between the materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of Shear Bonding Strength of Lithium Disilicate to Enamel under Different Surface Treatments

Mously¹,

Kazim²,

Nageeb³

et al. 2020

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T BACKGROUNDAccurate diagnosis and proper treatment planning should be established before making any prosthetic rehabilitation to restore the good appearance of the tooth, a better smile, phonetics, and to achieve perfect occlusion/mastication. We wanted to evaluate the changes of surface treatment protocols on the tensile bonding strength between enamel and ceramic restorations (lithium disilicate). METHODSA total of 20 freshly extracted, non-carious teeth were stored in normal saline solution at 25°C until used. Clean enamel surfaces 2 mm X 2 mm were obtained from the extracted teeth by using wheel diamond bur. Each enamel side received one Emax sprue, so four sprues of different surface treatment protocols per tooth (G1 TS: Etching, bonding, and curing. -cure resin cement, overall light cure). Tensile bonding strength was measured using the Instron testing machine. One-way ANOVA test was used to analyse the data. RESULTSThe highest mean was observed in Group 3 (124.34±43.47) followed by Group 1 (104.29±50.09), which is control group. In contrast, the lowest mean was observed in Group 2 (83.64 ± 53.56) and Group 4 (94.14±57.91). The results of ANOVA test have shown a significant difference between the surface treatment groups at 5% significance level. CONCLUSIONSHydrofluoric acid and primer/silane coupling agent create a porous surface on the ceramic that allow a good interaction with silane coupling agent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%