Isil Cekic-Nagas1, Gulfem Ergun2, Ferhan Egilmez2, Pekka Kalevi Vallittu3, Lippo Veli Juhana Lassila4. 1. Gazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: isilcekic@gmail.com. 2. Gazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Institute of Dentistry, Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre - TCBC, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; City of Turku, Division of Welfare, Turku, Finland. 4. Institute of Dentistry, Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre - TCBC, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of hydrofluoric acid treatment on bond strength of resin cements to three different types of ceramic/glass containing CAD-CAM block composite materials. METHODS: CAD-CAM block materials of polymer infiltrated (Vita Enamic), resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate) and nanoceramic (Cerasmart) with a thickness of 1.5mm were randomly divided into two groups according to the surface treatment performed. In Group 1, specimens were wet-ground with silicon carbide abrasive papers up to no. 1000. In Group 2, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel was applied to ceramics. Three different resin cements (RelyX, Variolink Esthetic and G-CEM LinkAce) were applied to the tubes in 1.2-mm thick increments and light-cured for 40s using LED light curing unit. Half of the specimens (n=10) were submitted to thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5-55°C). The strength measurements were accomplished with a universal testing machine (Lloyd Instruments) at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/min until the failure occurs. Failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope. The data were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between ceramics and resin cements (p<0.001). However, hydrofluoric acid gel treatment had no effect on bond strength values (p=0.073). In addition, thermal cycling significantly decreased bond strength values of resin cements to ceramics (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of appropriate resin cement systems with different ceramic/glass-polymer materials might promote the bonding capacity of these systems.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of hydrofluoric acid treatment on bond strength of resin cements to three different types of ceramic/glass containing CAD-CAM block composite materials. METHODS: CAD-CAM block materials of polymer infiltrated (Vita Enamic), resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate) and nanoceramic (Cerasmart) with a thickness of 1.5mm were randomly divided into two groups according to the surface treatment performed. In Group 1, specimens were wet-ground with silicon carbide abrasive papers up to no. 1000. In Group 2, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel was applied to ceramics. Three different resin cements (RelyX, Variolink Esthetic and G-CEM LinkAce) were applied to the tubes in 1.2-mm thick increments and light-cured for 40s using LED light curing unit. Half of the specimens (n=10) were submitted to thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5-55°C). The strength measurements were accomplished with a universal testing machine (Lloyd Instruments) at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/min until the failure occurs. Failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope. The data were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between ceramics and resin cements (p<0.001). However, hydrofluoric acid gel treatment had no effect on bond strength values (p=0.073). In addition, thermal cycling significantly decreased bond strength values of resin cements to ceramics (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of appropriate resin cement systems with different ceramic/glass-polymer materials might promote the bonding capacity of these systems.