Effect of Different Surface Treatments of Lithium Disilicate on the Adhesive Properties of Resin Cements.
hydrofluoric acid
light cured resin cement
lithium disilicate
shear bond strength
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jun 2021
15 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
16
05
2021
revised:
08
06
2021
accepted:
11
06
2021
entrez:
2
7
2021
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
3
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the current study was to evaluate the influence of hydrofluoric (HF) acid concentration and conditioning time on the shear bond strength (SBS) of dual cure resin cement to pressed lithium disilicate ceramic compared to treatment with an Etch and Prime self-etching glass-ceramic primer (EP). A total of 100 samples of pressed lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) were randomly divided into five groups (n = 20) according to surface treatment: two different concentrations of HF (5% or 9%), for different durations (20 or 90 s), or treatment with EP. Adhesion of light-cured resin cement to the treated surface was tested by the SBS test. The substrate surfaces of the specimen after failures were examined by SEM. Data were analyzed using Weibull distribution. The highest cumulative failure probability of 63.2% of the shear bond strength (η parameter) values was in the 9% HF -90 s group (17.71 MPa), while the lowest values were observed in the 5% HF -20 s group (7.94 MPa). SBS values were not affected significantly by the conditioning time (20 s or 90 s). However, compared to treatment with 5% HF, surface treatment with 9% HF showed a significantly higher η (MPa) as well as β (reliability parameter). Moreover, while compared to 9% HF for 20 s, EP treatment did not differ significantly in SBS values. Examination of the failure mode revealed a mixed mode of failure in all the groups. Within the limits of this study, it is possible to assume that IPS e.max Press surface treatment with 9% HF acid for only 20 s will provide a better bonding strength with resin cement than using 5% HF acid.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34203752
pii: ma14123302
doi: 10.3390/ma14123302
pmc: PMC8232589
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Mar/Apr;33(2):212-216
pubmed: 32069346
Braz Oral Res. 2020 Mar 16;34:e018
pubmed: 32187304
Braz Dent J. 2016 Jul-Aug;27(4):458-62
pubmed: 27652711
Oper Dent. 2018 Jul/Aug;43(4):372-379
pubmed: 29513637
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jan;17(1):275-84
pubmed: 22392163
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 May;89(5):479-88
pubmed: 12806326
Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):208-17
pubmed: 22856682
J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Feb;32(2):128-33
pubmed: 15641979
J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Aug;32(8):598-605
pubmed: 16011639
J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(2):175-182
pubmed: 32322838
Dent Mater. 2018 Sep;34(9):e255-e263
pubmed: 30031547
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019 Jun;94:144-154
pubmed: 30897502
Eur J Oral Sci. 2020 Dec;128(6):542-549
pubmed: 33247878
Dent Mater. 2012 May;28(5):467-77
pubmed: 22425571
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 May;121(5):754-765
pubmed: 30885580
Dent Clin North Am. 1992 Jul;36(3):765-82
pubmed: 1397433
Braz Oral Res. 2019;33:e041
pubmed: 31508723
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017 May;105(4):885-891
pubmed: 26849080
J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(4):319-327
pubmed: 31432046
Braz Dent J. 2011;22(1):45-50
pubmed: 21519648
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Jul;112(1):22-30
pubmed: 24674802
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 May;119(5):826-832
pubmed: 28967395
J Dent Res. 1993 Jun;72(6):1050-4
pubmed: 8388415
Eur J Dent. 2019 Feb;13(1):75-81
pubmed: 31170767
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jul;28(6):659-665
pubmed: 31145492
Materials (Basel). 2020 Jan 31;13(3):
pubmed: 32023979
J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Dec;96(6):412-7
pubmed: 17174658
J Dent. 2016 Dec;55:1-6
pubmed: 27594093
J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(3):261-268
pubmed: 29904754
J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(6):491-496
pubmed: 29234754
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Jul;120(1):132-137
pubmed: 29310875
Molecules. 2019 Jan 22;24(3):
pubmed: 30678247