| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2023 | Volume
: 20
| Issue : 1 | Page : 59 |
|
|
Microshear bond strength of resin cement to a zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic using different surface treatments
Mohammadreza Nakhaei1, Hamideh-Sadat Mohammadipour2, Seyyed-Farzan Eslami2, Zahra Soroush3
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Department of Cosmetic and Restorative Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Zahra Soroush
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Vakilabad Boulevard, Mashhad
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.377579
|
|
|
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of resin cement to zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic and to compare it with lithium disilicate ceramic.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 80 specimens containing two glass ceramics of IPS e.max press and VITA SUPRINITY were prepared and categorized into four groups according to the surface treatments (n = 10) as Group 1 (C): no treatment (control); Group 2 (HF): etching with 9% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s followed by silane application; Group 3 (SPH): sandblasting with Al2O3 particles (50 μm), etching with 35% phosphoric acid for 40 s followed by application of silane and adhesive (Clearfil liner bond F); and Group 4 (SB): sandblasting with Al2O3 followed by silanization. Then, a resin cement (Panavia F2) was applied to the prepared ceramic surfaces. All samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles, 5–55). The μSBS test was evaluated and failure modes were recorded. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro–Wilk, two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's Honest Significant Difference post hoc tests (P < 0.05).
Results: IPS e.max press samples revealed significantly higher μSBS values compared to VITA SUPRINITY (P < 0.001), in whole surface treatments. The HF group showed the highest μSBS value, followed by the SPH and SB groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Adhesive failure was recorded as a predominant failure mode.
Conclusion: The adhesion performance of IPS e.max press was significantly higher than VITA SUPRINITY. The common surface treatment protocol including HF application followed by silanization was the most effective surface treatment for both glass ceramics.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
