OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength between a leucite reinforced glass-ceramic and composite resin. METHODS:Leucite reinforced ceramic blocks (n=24) were constructed using the hot pressing technique. The blocks were assigned to 4 groups, which received the following surface treatments: G1: hydrofluoric (HF) acid and silane; G2: silane alone; G3: HF acid and silane then dried with warm air (100 degrees C); G4: silane alone then dried with warm air (100 degrees C). Unfilled resin was applied, followed by composite resin. Specimens were prepared and loaded in tension to determine the microtensile bond strength. Failure modes were classified by stereo- and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data was analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn's multiple range test. RESULTS: The groups including the warm air step (G3 and G4) achieved a significantly stronger adhesion than G1 and G2. Pre-treatment of the surface with hydrofluoric acid in G1 resulted in significantly higher bond strength than G2. Failures were mostly cohesive in the luting resin for G1, G3 and G4 and mainly adhesive at the ceramic-resin interface in G2. CONCLUSIONS: The method of application of silane to the ceramic surface can have a significant influence on the adhesion between the ceramic restoration and the resin cement. Enhancing the condensation reaction by drying the silane with a 100C warm air stream significantly improved the microtensile bond strength, possibly eliminating the need for the hydrofluoric acid etching step.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength between a leucite reinforced glass-ceramic and composite resin. METHODS: Leucite reinforced ceramic blocks (n=24) were constructed using the hot pressing technique. The blocks were assigned to 4 groups, which received the following surface treatments: G1: hydrofluoric (HF) acid and silane; G2: silane alone; G3: HF acid and silane then dried with warm air (100 degrees C); G4: silane alone then dried with warm air (100 degrees C). Unfilled resin was applied, followed by composite resin. Specimens were prepared and loaded in tension to determine the microtensile bond strength. Failure modes were classified by stereo- and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data was analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn's multiple range test. RESULTS: The groups including the warm air step (G3 and G4) achieved a significantly stronger adhesion than G1 and G2. Pre-treatment of the surface with hydrofluoric acid in G1 resulted in significantly higher bond strength than G2. Failures were mostly cohesive in the luting resin for G1, G3 and G4 and mainly adhesive at the ceramic-resin interface in G2. CONCLUSIONS: The method of application of silane to the ceramic surface can have a significant influence on the adhesion between the ceramic restoration and the resin cement. Enhancing the condensation reaction by drying the silane with a 100C warm air stream significantly improved the microtensile bond strength, possibly eliminating the need for the hydrofluoric acid etching step.