Effect of universal adhesives on microtensile bond strength to hybrid ceramic.
Bond strength
Ceramic
Silanization
Universal adhesive
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 08 2019
06 08 2019
Historique:
received:
12
02
2019
accepted:
26
07
2019
entrez:
8
8
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
19
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of universal adhesives (UA) and silane on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of resin cement to a hybrid ceramic Vita Enamic (VE). VE specimens were acid etched using hydrofluoric acid (HF) and were assigned to three groups (n = 10) based on the applied bonding technique. In group 1 (S), a silane-based primer was used as a surface treatment prior to the application of a resin cement (Variolink Esthetic DC). In group 2, a silane-containing UA, Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB) was used for the surface treatment, and in group 3, A silane-free UA, Tetric N-Bond Universal (TNU) was used for surface treatment. Resin cement build-ups were prepared. The bonded specimens were sectioned into resin-ceramic beams. Half of the beams of each group were stored for 24 h at 37 °C and the other half were subjected to a thermo-cycling aging. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were assessed accordingly. Data were analyzed using a) two-way analysis of variance ANOVA followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests between groups and b) independent t-test to detect differences (α = 0.05) for each group. The surface topographies of the ceramic surface were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. The results showed that silane-based primer (S) application resulted in significantly higher (p < 0.05) μTBS values after 24 h and after thermocycling compared to both silane-containing UA (CUB) and silane-free UA (TNU). The μTBS values of all groups were significantly reduced after thermocycling. No statistically significant difference was observed between the μTBS of CUB and TNU after 24 h. However, TNU showed significantly higher μTBS after thermocycling. Different failure modes were observed, and adhesive failure was the most common in all groups. Marked surface topographic changes were observed following HF etching. It is concluded that, the UAs tested cannot be recommended as substitutes to the silanization of Hybrid ceramic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of universal adhesives (UA) and silane on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of resin cement to a hybrid ceramic Vita Enamic (VE).
METHODS
VE specimens were acid etched using hydrofluoric acid (HF) and were assigned to three groups (n = 10) based on the applied bonding technique. In group 1 (S), a silane-based primer was used as a surface treatment prior to the application of a resin cement (Variolink Esthetic DC). In group 2, a silane-containing UA, Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB) was used for the surface treatment, and in group 3, A silane-free UA, Tetric N-Bond Universal (TNU) was used for surface treatment. Resin cement build-ups were prepared. The bonded specimens were sectioned into resin-ceramic beams. Half of the beams of each group were stored for 24 h at 37 °C and the other half were subjected to a thermo-cycling aging. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were assessed accordingly. Data were analyzed using a) two-way analysis of variance ANOVA followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests between groups and b) independent t-test to detect differences (α = 0.05) for each group. The surface topographies of the ceramic surface were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS
The results showed that silane-based primer (S) application resulted in significantly higher (p < 0.05) μTBS values after 24 h and after thermocycling compared to both silane-containing UA (CUB) and silane-free UA (TNU). The μTBS values of all groups were significantly reduced after thermocycling. No statistically significant difference was observed between the μTBS of CUB and TNU after 24 h. However, TNU showed significantly higher μTBS after thermocycling. Different failure modes were observed, and adhesive failure was the most common in all groups. Marked surface topographic changes were observed following HF etching.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that, the UAs tested cannot be recommended as substitutes to the silanization of Hybrid ceramic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31387557
doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0865-7
pii: 10.1186/s12903-019-0865-7
pmc: PMC6685274
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Cements
0
Resin Cements
0
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
178Références
Dent Mater. 2013 Jan;29(1):28-50
pubmed: 22867859
Int J Prosthodont. 2015 May-Jun;28(3):227-35
pubmed: 25965634
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Jul 1;18(7):622-626
pubmed: 28713119
J Adhes Dent. 2014 Dec;16(6):547-52
pubmed: 25516886
J Adhes Dent. 2015 Apr;17(2):169-74
pubmed: 25969840
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(6):340-53; discussion 354
pubmed: 18005284
Dent Mater. 2004 May;20(4):338-44
pubmed: 15019447
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Jul;28(4):231-7
pubmed: 27219683
Eur J Oral Sci. 2017 Apr;125(2):173-180
pubmed: 28233438
J Dent. 2013 Feb;41(2):170-9
pubmed: 23137995
Oper Dent. 2017 Nov/Dec;42(6):606-615
pubmed: 28708007
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2014 Apr;35(4):276-7
pubmed: 24773253
J Adhes Dent. 2013 Aug;15(4):361-8
pubmed: 23534013
Dent Mater. 2016 Nov;32(11):e275-e283
pubmed: 27639808
Oper Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):541-551
pubmed: 27379836
J Dent. 2014 Jul;42(7):800-7
pubmed: 24814138
J Dent Res. 2014 Dec;93(12):1232-4
pubmed: 25344335
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014 Nov-Dec;26(6):382-93
pubmed: 24754327
Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):208-17
pubmed: 22856682
J Dent Res. 2005 Feb;84(2):118-32
pubmed: 15668328
J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(4):289-302
pubmed: 27222889
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Mar;89(3):268-74
pubmed: 12644802
Oper Dent. 2016 Mar-Apr;41(2):171-8
pubmed: 26266652
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;28(1):56-66
pubmed: 26176202
Dent Mater. 2003 Dec;19(8):693-9
pubmed: 14511726
Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Mar-Apr;17(2):155-64
pubmed: 15119865
J Dent. 2014 Jan;42(1):90-8
pubmed: 24246687
Dent Mater. 2003 Dec;19(8):725-31
pubmed: 14511730
Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(2):173-81
pubmed: 23930578
J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(1):39-48
pubmed: 28195273
J Prosthodont. 2008 Jul;17(5):415-9
pubmed: 18482364
J Adhes Dent. 2015 Feb;17(1):7-26
pubmed: 25646166
Dent Mater. 2008 Oct;24(10):1316-23
pubmed: 18423839
J Adhes Dent. 2014 Dec;16(6):531-40
pubmed: 25516881
Oper Dent. 2015 Jul-Aug;40(4):372-8
pubmed: 25535784
Dent Mater. 2014 Jul;30(7):e147-62
pubmed: 24612840
J Dent Res. 1995 Jan;74(1):381-7
pubmed: 7876433
J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(2):174-5
pubmed: 27073814
Dent Mater. 2012 May;28(5):467-77
pubmed: 22425571
Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(1):9-20
pubmed: 25911826
Dent Mater. 2016 Jan;32(1):34-42
pubmed: 26454798
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013 Apr;20:113-25
pubmed: 23455168