Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement

Hatice Sevmez, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Handan YILMAZ (Gazi Üniversitesi, iş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Protetik Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences
2 0
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 554 - 563 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710 İndeks Tarihi: 17-01-2022

Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement

Öz:
Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of surface treatment techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of resin cement bonded to CAD / CAM materials. Methods: The zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate, Vita Suprinity (VS) and Celtra Duo (CD), and hybrid ceramics, Vita Enamic (VE) and Nacera Hybrid (NH), were used. Eighty specimens from each material were fabricated following the manufacturer’s instructions and separated into 8 groups according to surface treatments. These were; K (control, no treatments), H (hydrofluoric acid), HS (H+ Silane S), A (abraded with 50-micron alumina particles A), AS (A+ S), C (abraded with 30-micron Cojet sand C), CS (C+S), S. The mean surface roughness (SR) of the specimens was evaluated. Surface treated specimens were cemented to the resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) for testing the adhesion using the shear bond strength (SBS) test. Mean SR and SBS were evaluated by 2-way ANOVA with the material type and surface treatments techniques as the independent factors. Results: A and AS groups were observed to have the highest SR values. Both hybrid ceramics VE and NH showed the highest SR values among surface treatments. The highest SBS values were found usually on the H and HS treated surfaces. The highest values were observed on the CD material in the HS group (18.01MPa) and followed by the VE material (16.25 MPa) in the CS group. For CD and VS materials, adhesive and cohesive failures were found; and for VE and NH materials, adhesive and mixed cohesive failures were observed. Conclusion: The surface treatment showed a significant effect on SR and SBS values. Although the SR values of the materials are high in the A and AS group, the highest SBS values were observed on H and HS treated surfaces.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • [1] Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater 2014; 30:564-569.
  • [2] Albero A, Pascual A, Camps I, Grau-Benitez M.J. Comparative characterization of a novel cad-cam polymer-infiltratedceramic-network. Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7: e495-500.
  • [3] Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, Bottino MA. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96:412-417.
  • [4] Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89:268-274.
  • [5] Denry I, Kelly JR. Emerging ceramic-based materials for dentistry. J Dent Res 2014; 93:1235-42.
  • [6] Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28:227-235.
  • [7] Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gueth JF, Edelhoff D, Naumann M. In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns. Dent Mater 2012; 28:449-456.
  • [8] Sun T, Zhou S, Lai R, Liu R, Ma S, Zhou Z, Longquan S. Loadbearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014; 35:93-101.
  • [9] Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM. Mechanical properties of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 2016; 32:908-914.
  • [10] Aboushelib MN, Sleem D. Microtensile bond strength of lithium disilicate ceramics to resin adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16:547-552.
  • [11] Pneumans M, Valjakova EB, Munck JD, Mishevska CB, Meerbeek BV. Bonding effectiveness of luting composites to different CAD/CAM materials. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18:289-302.
  • [12] Sato TP, Anami LC, Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Effects of surface treatments on the bond strength between resin cement and a new zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic. Oper Dent 2016; 41:284-292.
  • [13] Chen C, Trindade FZ, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. The fracture resistance of a CAD/CAM Resin Nano Ceramic (RNC) and a CAD ceramic at different thicknesses. Dent Mater 2014; 30:954-962.
  • [14] Rohr N, Flury A, Fischer J. Efficacy of a universal adhesive in the bond strength of composite cements to polymer-infiltrated ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2017; 19:417-424.
  • [15] Bellan MC, Cunha PFJSD, Tavares JG, Spohr AM, Mota EG. Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM materials to dentin under different adhesive strategies. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31:e109.
  • [16] Ustun O, Buyukhatipoglu IK, Secilmiş A. Shear bond strength of repair systems to new CAD/CAM Restorative Materials. J Prosthodont 2018; 27:748-754.
  • [17] Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie N. Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19:299-308.
  • [18] Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From artisanal to CAD-CAM bocks: State of the art of indirect composites. J Dent Res 2016; 95:487-495.
  • [19] Wong ACH, Tian T, Tsoi JKH, Burrow MF, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of adhesion tests on resin-glass ceramic bonding. Dent Mater 2017; 33:1045-1055.
  • [20] Schwenter J, Schmidli F, Weiger R, Fischer adhesive bonding to polymer infiltrated ceramic. Dent Mater J 2016; 35:796-802.
  • [21] Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Haselton DR. Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81:135-141.
  • [22] Mair L, Padipatvuthikul P. Variables related to materials and preparing for bond strength testing irrespective of the test protocol. Dent Mater 2010; 26: e17-23.
  • [23] Della Bona A, Shen C, Anusavice KJ. Work of adhesion of resin on treated lithia disilicate-based ceramic. Dent Mater 2004; 20:338-344.
  • [24] Kim JE, Kim JH, Shim JS, Roh BD, Shin Y. Effect of air-particle pressures on the surface topography and bond strengths of resin cement to the hybrid ceramics. Dent Mater J 2017; 36:454-460.
  • [25] Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G, Irie M, Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B. Sandblasting may damage the surface of composite CAD-CAM blocks. Dent Mater 2017; 33:e124-e135.
  • [26] Campos F, Almeida CS, Rippe MP, de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. resin bonding to a hybrid ceramic: effects of surface treatments and aging. Oper Dent 2016; 41:171-178.
  • [27] Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 2003; 19:725.
  • [28] Pollington S, Fabianelli A, van Noort R. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to a novel fluorcanasite glassceramic following different surface treatments. Dent Mater 2010; 26:864-872.
  • [29] Hu M, Weiger R, Fischer J. Comparison of two test designs for evaluating the shear bond strength of resin composite cements. Dent Mater 2016; 32:223-232.
  • [30] Güngör MB, Nemli SK, Bal BT, Ünver S, Doğan A. Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to CAD/CAM resin-ceramic hybrid materials.J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8:259-266.
  • [31] Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. A review in 3 parts. Part 3: in vitro tests of adhesive systems. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2011; 121:1024-1040.
  • [32] Elsaka SE. Bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to self-adhesive resin cement: the effect of surface treatments. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16:531-540.
  • [33] Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014; 26:382-393.
  • [34] https://c4d.solutions/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/dmchybrid-anleitung-webseite_en-1.pdf
  • [35] Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994; 10:236-240.
  • [36] Ozcan M, Nijhuis H, Valandro LF. Effect of various surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional monomer to zirconia after thermal aging. Dent Mater J 2008; 27:99-104.
  • [37] Lise DP, Van Ende A, De Munck J, Vieira L, Baratieri LN, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Cement to Novel CAD/CAM Materials as a Function of Surface Treatment and Aging. Oper Dent 2017; 42:73-81.
  • [38] Peumans M, Hikita K, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. J Dent 2007; 35:282-288.
  • [39] Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ. Microstructure, composition, and etching topography of dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15:159-167.
  • [40] Menees TS, Lawson NC, Beck PR, Burgess JO. Influence of particle abrasion or hydrofluoric acid etching on lithium disilicate flexural strength. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112:1164- 1170.
  • [41] Amaral R, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconiareinforced ceramic: the effect of surface conditioning. Dent Mater 2006; 22:283-290.
  • [42] Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30:194-203.
  • [43] Whitehead SA, Shearer AC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Comparison of methods for measuring surface roughness of ceramic. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22:421-427.
  • [44] Homaei E, Farhangdoost K, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, Pow EHN. Static and fatigue mechanical behavior of three dental CAD/ CAM ceramics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016; 59:304-313.
  • [45] Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Reich S. New CAD/CAM materials and blocks for chairside procedures. Int J Comput Dent 2013; 16:173-181.
  • [46] Frankenberger R, Hartmann VE, Krech M, Krämer N, Reich S, Braun A, Roggendorf M. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent 2015; 18:9-20.
  • [47] Al-Thagafi R, Al-Zordk W, Saker S. Influence of surface conditioning protocols on reparability of CAD/CAM zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18:135-141.
  • [48] Lise DP, Perdigão J, Van Ende A, Zidan O, Lopes GC. Microshear bond strength of resin cements to lithium disilicate substrates as a function of surface preparation. Oper Dent 2015; 40:524-32.
  • [49] Özcan M, Volpato CA. Surface conditioning protocol for the adhesion of resin-based materials to glassy matrix ceramics: How to condition and why? J Adhes Dent 2015; 17:292-293.
  • [50] Oyagüe RC, Monticelli F, Toledano M, Osorio E, Ferrari M, Osorio R. Effect of water aging on microtensile bond strength of dual-cured resin cements to pre-treated sintered zirconiumoxide ceramics. Dent Mater 2009; 25:392-399.
APA Sevmez H, YILMAZ H (2021). Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. , 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
Chicago Sevmez Hatice,YILMAZ HANDAN Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. (2021): 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
MLA Sevmez Hatice,YILMAZ HANDAN Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. , 2021, ss.554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
AMA Sevmez H,YILMAZ H Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. . 2021; 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
Vancouver Sevmez H,YILMAZ H Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. . 2021; 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
IEEE Sevmez H,YILMAZ H "Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement." , ss.554 - 563, 2021. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
ISNAD Sevmez, Hatice - YILMAZ, HANDAN. "Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement". (2021), 554-563. https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
APA Sevmez H, YILMAZ H (2021). Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 11(3), 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
Chicago Sevmez Hatice,YILMAZ HANDAN Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 11, no.3 (2021): 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
MLA Sevmez Hatice,YILMAZ HANDAN Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, vol.11, no.3, 2021, ss.554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
AMA Sevmez H,YILMAZ H Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2021; 11(3): 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
Vancouver Sevmez H,YILMAZ H Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2021; 11(3): 554 - 563. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
IEEE Sevmez H,YILMAZ H "Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement." Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 11, ss.554 - 563, 2021. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
ISNAD Sevmez, Hatice - YILMAZ, HANDAN. "Comparison of the Effect of Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Different Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Hybrid Ceramics to Resin Cement". Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 11/3 (2021), 554-563. https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.867710
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
30-04-2024 7:59

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları