Nina Lümkemann1, Marlis Eichberger2, Bogna Stawarczyk3,4. 1. Research Associate of Dental Material Unit, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 2. Dental Technician of Dental Material Unit, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 3. Scientific Head of Dental Material Unit, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de. 4. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of plasma treatment and (universal adhesives) UAs on the bonding properties of zirconia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia specimens (N = 744; n = 186/pretreatment) were prepared, highly polished, and pretreated: (i) plasma (oxygen plasma, 10s, 5 mm), (ii) airborne-particle abrasion (alumina, 50 μm, 0.05 MPa, 5 s, 10 mm), (iii) airborne-particle abrasion + plasma, and (iv) without pretreatment (highly polished surface). Surface roughness (Ra) and surface free energy (SFE) were measured (n = 6/pretreatment). Tensile bond strength (TBS) specimens (n = 180/pretreatment) were further divided (n = 18/conditioning): Clearfil Ceramic Primer (PCG), All-Bond Universal (ABU), Adhese Universal (AU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB), G-Premio Bond (GPB), Futurabond U (FBU), iBond Universal (IBU), One Coat 7 Universal (OCU), Scotchbond Universal (SBU), and no conditioning. PCG was luted with Panavia F2.0 and the remaining groups with DuoCem. After storage in distilled water (24 h; 37 °C) and thermocycling (5000×; 5 °C/55 °C), TBS was measured and fracture types (FTs) were determined. Data were analyzed using univariate ANOVA with a partial eta square (ƞP2), the Kruskal-Wallis H, the Mann-Whitney U, and the Chi2 test (P < .05). RESULTS: Plasma treatment resulted in an increase of SFE but had no impact on Ra. Airborne-particle abrasion resulted in the highest Ra and a higher TBS when compared with plasma and non-treatment. SBU and AU obtained a higher TBS when compared with PCG. OCU, FBU, ABU, IBU, and GPB indicated comparable TBS to PCG. CUB revealed the lowest TBS. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma treatment cannot substitute airborne-particle abrasion when bonding zirconia but MDP-containing adhesives are essential for successful clinical outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Airborne-particle abrasion with a low pressure (0.05 MPa) in combination with UAs promotes the clinical success of adhesively bonded zirconia restorations.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of plasma treatment and (universal adhesives) UAs on the bonding properties of zirconia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia specimens (N = 744; n = 186/pretreatment) were prepared, highly polished, and pretreated: (i) plasma (oxygen plasma, 10s, 5 mm), (ii) airborne-particle abrasion (alumina, 50 μm, 0.05 MPa, 5 s, 10 mm), (iii) airborne-particle abrasion + plasma, and (iv) without pretreatment (highly polished surface). Surface roughness (Ra) and surface free energy (SFE) were measured (n = 6/pretreatment). Tensile bond strength (TBS) specimens (n = 180/pretreatment) were further divided (n = 18/conditioning): Clearfil Ceramic Primer (PCG), All-Bond Universal (ABU), Adhese Universal (AU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB), G-Premio Bond (GPB), Futurabond U (FBU), iBond Universal (IBU), One Coat 7 Universal (OCU), Scotchbond Universal (SBU), and no conditioning. PCG was luted with Panavia F2.0 and the remaining groups with DuoCem. After storage in distilled water (24 h; 37 °C) and thermocycling (5000×; 5 °C/55 °C), TBS was measured and fracture types (FTs) were determined. Data were analyzed using univariate ANOVA with a partial eta square (ƞP2), the Kruskal-Wallis H, the Mann-Whitney U, and the Chi2 test (P < .05). RESULTS: Plasma treatment resulted in an increase of SFE but had no impact on Ra. Airborne-particle abrasion resulted in the highest Ra and a higher TBS when compared with plasma and non-treatment. SBU and AU obtained a higher TBS when compared with PCG. OCU, FBU, ABU, IBU, and GPB indicated comparable TBS to PCG. CUB revealed the lowest TBS. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma treatment cannot substitute airborne-particle abrasion when bonding zirconia but MDP-containing adhesives are essential for successful clinical outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Airborne-particle abrasion with a low pressure (0.05 MPa) in combination with UAs promotes the clinical success of adhesively bonded zirconia restorations.
Authors: Adam Wawrzynkiewicz; Wioletta Rozpedek-Kaminska; Grzegorz Galita; Monika Lukomska-Szymanska; Barbara Lapinska; Jerzy Sokolowski; Ireneusz Majsterek Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 5.923