Repair bond strength of dental computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufactured ceramics after different surface treatments

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of four dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) ceramics after application of four different surface treatments. Materials and methods: Four dental CAD/CAM ceramics were tested: feldspathic ceramic (VITABLOCKS-Mark II), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (VITA ENAMIC), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (VITA SUPRINITY), and yttria-stabilized zirconia (VITA YZ T). Four surface treatments were applied: no treatment, 5% hydrofluoric acid-etching, airborne particle abrasion, and tribochemical silica coating. The ceramic blocks were repaired with nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Collection). Sixteen test groups of 12 specimens were prepared. After thermocycling, microtensile bond testing was performed. The microtensile strengths values were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. Results: Repaired feldspathic and resin polymer-infiltrated ceramic network ceramics demonstrated superior microtensile bond strengths compared to zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and yttria-stabilized zirconia. Etched feldspathic and polymerinfiltrated ceramic network ceramics had higher bond strength than the untreated groups. Surface treatments did not affect the bond strength of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and yttria-stabilized zirconia with the exception of etching, which reduced the bond strength of yttria-stabilized zirconia. Conclusion: Feldspathic ceramic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network were repaired with dental composite after surface etching with hydrofluoric acid. Repair of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and yttria-stabilized zirconia did not demonstrate promising results. Clinical significance: Repair of feldspathic ceramic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network restorations may be a cost-effective means to promote the longevity of dental restorations. However, zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate restorations do not offer such an option.

Indirect restorative systems—A narrative review

“…The bond strength with conventional adhesive systems to resin composite after HF conditioning was significantly higher than all other surface treatments for FEL ceramics and LDS systems. 88,89 On the other hand, application of micromechanical and chemical surface preparation methods (diamond bur abrasion, alumina or silica-coated alumina particles abrasion) might enhance bond strength of the composite to the substrate material for LEU and also for LDS glass ceramics. 88 Conventional methods of producing ceramic restorations, such as powder-liquid condensation and heat pressing present major drawbacks, such as the reliance on a manual production.…”

“…The adhesion strength of glass ceramics to resin composites followed by different surface treatment has been investigated, including hydrofluoric acid etching (HF) and airborne particle abrasion with alumina particles or silica‐coated alumina particles. The bond strength with conventional adhesive systems to resin composite after HF conditioning was significantly higher than all other surface treatments for FEL ceramics and LDS systems 88,89 . On the other hand, application of micromechanical and chemical surface preparation methods (diamond bur abrasion, alumina or silica‐coated alumina particles abrasion) might enhance bond strength of the composite to the substrate material for LEU and also for LDS glass ceramics 88 …”

How the repair bonding strength of hybrid ceramic CAD/CAM blocks is influenced by the use of surface treatments and universal adhesives

“…Etching with hydrofluoric acid (HF) dissolves silica selectively in the dental ceramic's glass phase and produces an irregular surface, leading to greater bonding strength with the composite resin. However, HF cannot be used for etching silica-free ceramics such as zirconia-and alumina-based ceramics and therefore cannot provide efficient retention 16) . For chemical pretreatment, the use of coupling agents and 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) combining bonding agents are suggested.…”

Effect of different design and surface treatment on the load-to- failure of ceramic repaired with composite

“…Removing restorations luted with adhesive inevitably enlarges the new preparation and weakens the tooth 7 , 8 . However, certain cases can be repaired with direct composite, which is a minimally invasive, low-cost, less time-consuming procedure 2 , 5 .…”