The influence of internal surface treatments on tensile bond strength for two ceramic systems
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Data
2007-09-01
Autores
Kiyan, V. H.
Saraceni, C. H. C.
Silveira, B. L.
Aranha, A. C. C.
Eduardo, C. P.
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Operative Dentistry Inc
Resumo
Statement of the Problem: the ceramic composition and surface microstructure of all-ceramic restorations are important components of an effective bonding substrate. Hydrofluoric acid and sandblasting are well-known procedures for surface treatment; however, surface treatment for high alumina-containing and lithium disilicate ceramics have not been fully investigated.Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the tensile bond strength of resin cement to two types of ceramic systems with different surface treatments.Methods and Materials: Thirty specimens of each ceramic system were made according to the manufacturer's instructions and embedded in polyester resin. Specimens of In-Ceram Alumina [1] and IPS Empress 2 [E] were distributed to three groups with differing surface treatments (n=10): sandblasting with 50 jam aluminum oxide (APA); sandblasting with 110 pm aluminum oxide modified with silica particles (ROCATEC System-RS); a combination of sandblasting with APA and 10% hydrofluoric acid etching (HA) for two minutes on In-Ceram and for 20 seconds for IPS Empress 2. After the respective surface treatments, all the specimens were silanated, and Rely-X resin cement was injected onto the ceramic surface and light polymerized. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and thermally cycled 1,100 times (5 degrees C/55 degrees C). The tensile bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine at a 0.5 mm/minute crosshead speed.Results: the mean bond strength values (AWa) for IPS Empress 2 were 12.01 +/- 5.93 (EAPA), 10.34 +/- 1.77 (ERS) and 14.49 +/- 3.04 (EHA). The mean bond strength values for In-Ceram Alumina were 9.87 +/- 2.40 JAPA) and 20.40 +/- 6.27 (IRS). All In-Ceram specimens treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid failed during thermal cycling.Conclusion: the Rocatec system was the most effective surface treatment for In-Ceram Alumina ceramics; whereas, the combination of aluminum oxide sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid etching for 20 seconds worked more effectively for Empress 2 ceramics.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Como citar
Operative Dentistry. Indianapolis: Operative Dentistry Inc., v. 32, n. 5, p. 457-465, 2007.