Bond strength between a lithium disilicate ceramic processed by different methods and a resin cement under different ceramic surface treatments

Admin Dental Press

Edition V16N03 | Year 2019 | Editorial Artigo de Pesquisa | Pages 76 to 93

Anália Gabriella Borges Ferraz, Ana Maria Spohr, Mariá Cortina Bellan, Benito André Silveira Miranzi, Luis Henrique Borges, Saturnino Calabrez-filho e Gilberto Antônio Borges.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and the processing of a lithium disilicate ceramic on bond strength and interfacial characteristics with a photoactivated resin cement. Methods: 20 pressed blocks (IPS e. max Press) and 20 blocks using the CAD / CAM technique (IPS e.max CAD) (10-mm diameter x 1-mm thickness) were made. Each type of processing was divided into four groups (n = 5), according to the type of surface treatment. There were eight experimental groups, in total: NT = without surface treatment; HFS = 10% hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silane application; HFU = HF 10% and universal adhesive; and EP = primer application. After preparation, the samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37 °C, and submitted to the bond strength test. The bond strength values, in MPa, were analyzed by Student’s t-test, Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (p > 0.05). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were performed for qualitative analysis of the fracture pattern after bond strength testing, and specimens were fabricated for cement/ceramic interface analysis. Results and Conclusion: The HFU (16.8 ± 3.51 MPa) and EP (12.9 ± 3.05 MPa) treatments presented the best bond strength values for pressed ceramics and statistically better than HFU and EP of CAD / CAM ceramics. Among the CAD / CAM ceramics, the best values were presented by the HFS treatment (8.17 ± 4.81 MPa), which is statistically similar to the pressed HFS (5.92 ± 3.51 MPa). Only the NT groups presented gaps and SEM adhesive fracture pattern in the ceramic / cement interface. The other groups presented a mixed fracture pattern, without significant gaps in the ceramic / cement interface. The HFU and EP treatments were the best for pressed ceramics and HFS and HFU for CAD / CAM ceramics. SEM images showed no significant differences between surface treatment types, except NTs.

Ceramic, Resin cements, Shear bond strength, CAD-CAM,

Ferraz AGB, Spohr AM, Bellan MC, Miranzi BAS, Borges LH, Calabrez-Filho S, Borges GA. Bond strength between a lithium disilicate ceramic processed by different methods and a resin cement under different ceramic surface treatments. J Clin Dent Res. 2019 Sep-Dec;16(3):76-93.

Related articles