Logo do repositório

Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia

dc.contributor.authorda Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantas
dc.contributor.authorda Silva, Sarah Emille Gomes
dc.contributor.authorda Silva, Nathália Ramos
dc.contributor.authorde Moreira, Fernanda Gurgel Gois
dc.contributor.authorSouza, Karina Barbosa [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yu
dc.contributor.authorde Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Dental Medicine
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-29T20:14:17Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the miniflexural strength (MFS) of monolithic zirconia. Materials and Methods: Two-hundred and forty (240) sintered bars of translucent zirconia (ZT) and ultra-translucent zirconia (ZUT) were obtained (8 mm ×2 mm ×1 mm). The bars were divided into 16 groups (n = 15) according to the factors “Zirconia” (ZT and ZUT), “Cementation” (Cem) and “surface treatment” (Ctrl:Control, Al:Aluminum oxide/Al2O3 50 µm, Si:Silica/SiO2 coated alumina particles oxide 30 µm, Gl:Glazing+hydrofluoric acid). Half of the bars received an adhesive layer application, followed by application of resin cement and light curing. The surface roughness was measured in non-cemented groups. All the bars were subjected to the MFS test (1.0 mm/min; 100 kgf). Scanning electron microscopy was used for qualitative analyses. MFS data (MPa) and roughness (µm) were statistically evaluated by three-way and two-way ANOVA respectively and Tukey's test (5%). Results: The surface treatment and the interaction were significant for roughness. Glazing promoted less roughness compared to silicatization. Regarding MFS, only the zirconia and surface treatment factors were significant. For ZT, the sandblasted groups had an increase in MFS and glazing reduced it. There was no difference between the groups without cementation for the ZUT; however, ZUT.Si/Cem, and ZUT.Al/Cem obtained superior MFS among the cemented groups. Conclusions: Sandblasting increases the flexural strength for ZT, while glaze application tends to reduce it. Applying resin cement increases the flexural strength of ZUT when associated with sandblasting. Sandblasting protocols promote greater surface roughness.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dentistry Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Rio Grande do Norte
dc.description.affiliationInstitute of Science and Technology Paulista State University (UNESP), São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Preventive and Restorative University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dentistry Adjunct in Prosthodontics Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Rio Grande do Norte
dc.description.affiliationUnespInstitute of Science and Technology Paulista State University (UNESP), São Paulo
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13929
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Prosthodontics.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jopr.13929
dc.identifier.issn1532-849X
dc.identifier.issn1059-941X
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85202036348
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/309031
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Prosthodontics
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectflexural strength
dc.subjectresin cement
dc.subjectsandblasting
dc.subjectsurface treatment
dc.subjectzirconia
dc.titleEffect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconiaen
dc.typeArtigopt
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-0856-7178[7]

Arquivos

Coleções