Elham Moravej-Salehi1, Elahe Moravej-Salehi2, Azam Valian3. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Private Practice, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. azamvalian@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the bond strength of composite resin to feldspathic porcelain and its surface topography after sandblasting at different pressures. METHODS: In this in vitro study, 68 porcelain disks were fabricated and randomly divided into four groups of 17. The porcelain surface in group 1 was etched with hydrofluoric acid. Groups 2, 3, and 4 were sandblasted at 2, 3 and 4 bars pressure, respectively. Surface topography of seven samples in each of the four groups was examined by a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The remaining 40 samples received the same silane agent, bonding agent, and composite resin and they were then subjected to 5000 thermal cycles and evaluated for shear bond strength. Data were analyzed using one-way anova. The mode of failure was determined using stereomicroscope and SEM. RESULTS: The highest shear bond strength was seen in group 4. however, statistically significant differences were not seen between the groups (P = 0.780). The most common mode of failure was cohesive in porcelain. The SEM showed different patterns of hydrofluoric acid etching and sandblasting. CONCLUSION: Increasing the sandblasting pressure increased the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain but no difference in bond strength occurred.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the bond strength of composite resin to feldspathic porcelain and its surface topography after sandblasting at different pressures. METHODS: In this in vitro study, 68 porcelain disks were fabricated and randomly divided into four groups of 17. The porcelain surface in group 1 was etched with hydrofluoric acid. Groups 2, 3, and 4 were sandblasted at 2, 3 and 4 bars pressure, respectively. Surface topography of seven samples in each of the four groups was examined by a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The remaining 40 samples received the same silane agent, bonding agent, and composite resin and they were then subjected to 5000 thermal cycles and evaluated for shear bond strength. Data were analyzed using one-way anova. The mode of failure was determined using stereomicroscope and SEM. RESULTS: The highest shear bond strength was seen in group 4. however, statistically significant differences were not seen between the groups (P = 0.780). The most common mode of failure was cohesive in porcelain. The SEM showed different patterns of hydrofluoric acid etching and sandblasting. CONCLUSION: Increasing the sandblasting pressure increased the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain but no difference in bond strength occurred.