Literature DB >> 20672726

Surface/interface morphology and bond strength to glass ceramic etched for different periods.

Lucas Z Naves1, Carlos J Soares, Rafael R Moraes, Luciano S Gonçalves, Mário Alexandre C Sinhoreti, Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of etching periods on the surface/interface morphology and bond strength to glass ceramic with or without application of an unfilled resin after silane. Ceramic discs were divided into 12 groups, defined by etching time with 10% hydrofluoric acid: G1/G7--etching for 10 seconds, G2/G8--20 seconds; G3/G9--40 seconds; G4/G10--60 seconds; G5/G11--120 seconds and G6/G12--60 + 60 seconds. All the groups were silanated after etching and G7 - G12 received a layer of unfilled resin after silane. Microshear testing using resin cement was performed, with 12 resin cylinders tested per group. The data was submitted to two-way ANOVA and the Student-Newman-Keuls' test (p<0.05). Evaluation of the etching pattern and bonding interfaces was conducted by SEM. The bond strength means (MPa) were: 19.4 +/- 3.5, 22.3 +/- 5.1, 22.2 +/- 3.2, 17.8 +/- 2.1, 15.3 +/- 3.0 and 14.3 +/- 1.8 for G1-G6 and 17.4 +/- 4.8, 21.3 +/- 2.1, 21.1 +/- 2.3, 24.7 +/- 5.8, 20.4 +/- 2.2 and 18.5 +/- 4.6 for G7-G12. Poor etching was detected after 10 seconds of conditioning; whereas deep channels were extensively observed on surfaces etched for 120 and 60 + 60 seconds. Unfilled voids underlying the ceramic-cement interface were detected when only silane was applied. Full completion of the irregularities on G11 was detected using unfilled resin. When only silane was applied, the 60-second group and those etched for longer periods showed lower bond strengths. When both silane and unfilled resin were applied, all etching periods generally showed similar values. In conclusion, the etching period influenced the surface/interface topography and bond strength to ceramic. The application of unfilled resin was able to infiltrate all unfilled voids beneath the ceramic-cement interface, except on re-etched surfaces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20672726     DOI: 10.2341/09-152-L

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  6 in total

1.  Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic.

Authors:  Bogna Stawarczyk; Andreas Krawczuk; Nicoleta Ilie
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Comparison between shear forces applied on the overlay-dental tissue interface using different bonding techniques: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Thomas Reboul; H A Hoang Thaï; Sibel Cetik; Ramin Atash
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep

3.  Surface Treatment Effect on Shear Bond Strength between Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement.

Authors:  Siripan Simasetha; Awiruth Klaisiri; Tool Sriamporn; Kraisorn Sappayatosok; Niyom Thamrongananskul
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2021-12-17

4.  Assessment of Different Techniques for Adhesive Cementation of All-Ceramic Systems.

Authors:  Cristiana Cuzic; Marius Octavian Pricop; Anca Jivanescu; Sorin Ursoniu; Radu Marcel Negru; Mihai Romînu
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 2.948

5.  Effect of Bonding Protocols on the Performance of Luting Agents Applied to CAD-CAM Composites.

Authors:  Bruna Hilgemberg; Fabiana Suelen Figuerêdo de Siqueira; Andres Felipe Millan Cardenas; Josiane Loch Ribeiro; Andrés Dávila-Sánchez; Salvatore Sauro; Alessandro Dourado Loguercio; Cesar Augusto Galvao Arrais
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 3.748

6.  Effect of Surface Coating on Bond Strength between Etched Feldspar Ceramic and Resin-Based Luting Agents.

Authors:  Jader Sebben; Volni A Canevese; Rodrigo Alessandretti; Gabriel K R Pereira; Rafael Sarkis-Onofre; Ataís Bacchi; Aloísio O Spazzin
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.