| Literature DB >> 31170756 |
Bernardo Luiz Gallina1, Mauro Carlos Agner Busato2, Eliseu Augusto Sicoli1, Veridiana Camilotti3, Marcio Jose Mendonca1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the bond strength of two compositions of aesthetic translucent zirconia (TZ).Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31170756 PMCID: PMC6635970 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Dent
List of the materials used
| Material | Manufacturer | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| Zirconia Prettau Anterior | Zirkonzahn, Gais, Bolzano, Italy | ZrO 2 , Y 2 O 3 < 12%, Al 2 O 3 < 1%, SiO 2 < 0.02%, Fe 2 O 3 < 0.01%, Na 2 O < 0.04% |
| ICE Zirkon Translucent Zirconia | Zirkonzahn, Gais, Bolzano, Italy | ZrO 2 , Y 2 O 3 4–6%, Al 2 O 3 < 1%, SiO 2 < 0.02%, Fe 2 O 3 < 0.01%, Na 2 O < 0.04% |
| Monobond Plus | Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein | Silane methacrylate, meth-acrylate phosphate, meth-acrylate, bisphenol glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEG-DMA) |
| RelyX Unicem U200 Resin Cement | 3M ESPE Dental, St. Paul, MN, USA | Base: Methacrylate monomers, methacrylate phosphoric acid, silanized particles, initiator components, stabilizer Catalyst: Methacrylate monomers, alkaline particles, initiator components, silanized particles, stabilizer, and pigments |
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the experimental sample.
Fig. 2Sample fixed to universal test machine.
Factorial ANOVA for the experimental groups
| Sources of variation | Degrees of freedom | Sum of squares | Mean squares | Calculated F | Critical F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ceramic Brand | 1 | 30.2685 | 30.2685 | 47.107 | < 0.0001 |
| Time | 1 | 581.4255 | 581.4255 | 904.8773 | < 0.0001 |
| Interaction | 1 | 1.5252 | 1.5252 | 2.3737 | 0.1276 |
| Error | 40 | 25.7018 | 0.6425 |
Fig. 3Box-plot graph of the bond strength of the experimental groups (MPa).
Mean values of resistance to microshearing of the experimental groups, followed by the respective standard deviations (MPa) and statistical analysis
| Material/Time | 24 hours | 90 days |
|---|---|---|
|
Different letters in the same row or column mean statistically significant differences. Capital letters for columns and lower case letters for rows (
| ||
| ZT | 7.35 (± 0.76) Aa | 0.45 (± 0.11) Ab |
| ZPA | 9.16 (± 1.03) Ba | 1.74 (± 0.57) Bb |
Fig. 4Analysis of the frequency of fracture types (%).
Fig. 5Scanning electron micrograph of the ZT1 group. (a) Adhesive failure: It may be noted that no fragments of resin cement adhered to the surface of the zirconia. (b) Mixed failure: It is noted that cement adhered to the surface of the zirconia, as can be seen in the encircled areas.
Fig. 6Scanning electron micrograph of the ZPA1 group. (a) Adhesive failure: No fragments of resin cement adhered to the surface of the zirconia. (b) Mixed failure: It is noted on the surface of the zirconia resin cement adhered on the edges and part of the center of the surface where the cement post was located, as can be seen in the encircled areas.
Fig. 7Scanning electron micrograph of the ZT2 Group. (a) Adhesive failure: No resin cement adhered to the surface. (b) Mixed failure: There is a single area where resin cement is present in the encircled area.
Fig. 8Scanning electron micrograph of the ZPA2 group. (a) Adhesive failure: No resin is present on the surface, but some dirt appears. (b) Mixed failure: Areas are highlighted where resin can be observed after the microshear tests.