Interfacial fracture toughness of different resin cements bonded to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic

Effect of resin cement selection on fracture resistance of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns containing virgilite: A comparative in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Studies on the fracture performance of a recently introduced computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) lithium disilicate ceramic containing virgilite with different cements are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of crowns made of a recently introduced chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate containing virgilite cemented with different types of adhesive luting cement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty complete coverage crowns for a maxillary right central incisor were milled out of a lithium disilicate with virgilite (CEREC Tessera) (n=48) and a traditional lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) (n=12) using a chairside CAD-CAM system (Primescan). The central incisor tooth preparation included a 1.5-mm incisal reduction, a 1.0-mm axial reduction, and a 1.0-mm chamfer finish line. The restorations were bonded with different types of resin cement to 3D printed dies of the tooth preparation and were divided into 5 groups (n=12 per group): e.max CAD with Multilink Automix (E.Mu); Tessera with Multilink Automix (T.Mu); Tessera with Calibra (T.Ca); Tessera with Unicem (T.Un); and Tessera with Speedcem (T.Sp). The cemented restorations were stored in water for 30 days and then loaded until they were fractured in compression. The load at fracture was analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the honestly significant difference (HSD) Tukey test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean fracture resistance of traditional lithium disilicate and virgilite lithium disilicate anterior crowns significantly differed depending on the type of resin cement used (P<.05). Group E.Mu displayed the highest values (946.35 ±155 N), followed by group T.Un (819.59 ±232 N), group T.Sp (675.52 ±153 N), and group T.Mu (656.95 ±193 N). The lowest values were displayed by group T.Ca (567.94 ±184 N).

CONCLUSIONS

The fracture resistance of lithium disilicate containing virgilite and traditional lithium disilicate crowns cemented with the same cement displayed statistically similar values. However, significant differences were observed when the virgilite lithium disilicate crowns were cemented with different types of adhesive luting cement. The crowns in the T.Ca group displayed the lowest fracture resistance.

Effect of Repressing Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics on The Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cements

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of repeated pressing of lithium disilicate ceramic on the shear bond strength (SBS) of three types of resin cement.

METHODOLOGY

A lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max® Press) was first heat-pressed to form rectangular disk specimens. Then, leftovers were used for the second and third presses. A total of 90 specimens were prepared and separated, according to the number of pressing cycles, into three groups: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd presses (n = 30). Each group was further subdivided into three groups (n = 10) according to the type of resin cement used, as follows: Multilink N (MN), Variolink Esthetic DC (VDC), and Variolink Esthetic LC (VLC). All the cement was bonded to the ceramic surface, which was etched with hydrofluoric acid and primed with Monobond Plus. All samples were light-cured and stored for 24 h. Shear bond strength was tested on a universal testing machine.

RESULTS

A two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the influence of repeated pressing cycles and cement type as well as their interaction. The results indicated that cement type has a significant impact (p < 0.001) but not the number of pressing cycles (p = 0.970) or their interaction (p = 0.836). The Bonferroni post-hoc test showed that the SBS of MN was significantly higher than that of VDC and VLC in the first press and second press cycles, respectively. The SBS of MN was significantly higher than that of VDC and VLC cements in the third pressing cycle. There was no significant difference in the SBS between VLC and VDC in all three pressing cycles.

CONCLUSION

The results of the current study did not report a detrimental effect of repeated pressing up to three cycles on the shear bond strength of the IPS e.max® Press. Multilink resin cement showed the highest SBS to IPS e.max® Press at the third pressing cycle. For all types of cement and heat pressing cycles, the majority of cement failures were adhesive. No cohesive failures occurred in any of the tested resin cements, regardless of the cement type or the number of heat pressing cycles tested.

Surface Treatment and Cementation of Lithium Silicate Ceramics Containing ZrO2

Objective

To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium silicate (LS) and lithium disilicate (LD) ceramics, after thermocycling.

Methods and Materials

For SBS test, 72 ceramic blocks (18×14×2 mm) were made (24 blocks from each ceramic material): VITA Suprinity (LSS), Celtra Duo (LSC), and Lithium disilicate (LD). The blocks were polished with sandpaper of increasing grit (#280, #400, #800, and #1200) and embedded in chemically activated acrylic resin. Afterwards, they were randomly divided into 12 groups (6 blocks per group) according to: “Ceramic” (LD, LSC, and LSS) and “Surface treatment” (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane; MEP: Monobond Etch & Prime/Ivoclar). From each treated surface ceramic block, four dual-curing resin cement cylinders (RelyX U200, 3M Oral Care) were prepared using a Tygon tube (Ø=3 mm and h=2 mm) and light cured for 40 seconds (1000 mW/cm2) (N=288/n=24). All specimens were submitted to thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C, 30 seconds) and then to SBS test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min using a 50-kgf load cell. Forty-five additional blocks were made for roughness and SEM analysis. Failure mode was also performed. The data (MPa) were statistically analyzed by oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey test (5%), and Weibull analysis. The Ra was analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn Test (5%). The other variables were analyzed qualitatively.

Results

ANOVA revealed that “surface treatment” was significant for all ceramic materials (p&lt;0.05). The LD-HFS (18.66±3.49), LSC-HFS (16.81±2.62), and LSS-HFS (16.33±3.08) groups had significantly higher SBS than the LD-MEP (7.00±4.2), LSC-MEP (14.12±3.51), and LSS-MEP (13.87±2.52) groups. Complete adhesive failures at the cement– dentin interface were more frequent. Weibull modulus was superior for the LD-HFS (6.22), LSC-HFS (8.8), and LSS-HFS (7.4) groups.

Conclusion

HF followed by silanization is the most suitable surface treatment for the cementation of LS and LD glass ceramics.

Comparative Assessment of the Functional Parameters for Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Teeth Restorations in Prosthetic Dentistry-A Literature Review

Simple Summary

In the last decades, the science and technology of all-ceramic teeth restorations witnessed the fastest-growing field of restorative materials in research and development for fixed prosthodontics. Due to their properties, characterized by a high level of biocompatibility, excellent optical properties, and high fracture resistance, all-ceramic material can also be used in the posterior areas of the dental arches. However, metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures are still perceived as the golden standard for those restorations, thanks to the positive clinical outcomes. Irrespective of the materials of which fixed partial dentures are performed, their success rates depend on the expected outcome and on how they perform in the oral environment. Such conditions of failure restorations may include biological factors (i.e., secondary decay, loss of vitality, periodontal disease, or abutment fracture) or technical factors (i.e., chipping, ceramic fracture, framework fracture, or loss of retention). Our aim is to provide the current evidence for the efficacy of metal-ceramics and all-ceramics in the treatment of multiple posterior edentulous spaces. Moreover, we aim to compare the survival rates of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic fixed partial dentures in terms of functionality and biocompatibility in all the aforementioned clinical situations. Our results have shown that all all-ceramic systems, especially densely sintered zirconia and reinforced glass ceramics, have a promising future to satisfy both practitioners and patients. However, technical and biological complications need to be taken into account when planning multi-unit fixed partial dentures for the posterior areas.

Abstract

The metal-ceramic fixed partial prosthesis is the golden standard for posterior tooth restorations. Following the demands of patients and clinicians for metal-free restorations, all-ceramic materials were developed as they offer an adequate alternative with better optical qualities and good mechanical properties. This study aims to carry out a bibliographic review to assess the survival rate and the biological and technical complications of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures. An electronic search for articles in the English language literature was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE). This literature review focused on research studies between 2010 and 2020 that performed clinical studies on tooth-supported fixed partial dentures with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. All the studies, which analyzed the survival and complications of tooth-supported fixed partial dentures, were included. Thus, 14 studies reporting on 756 all-ceramic and 160 metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures met the inclusion criteria. A comparative analysis was carried out based on all the data existing in the studies included in this review. The metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures showed survival rates of 95% to 100% at 3-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up periods. Zirconia fixed partial dentures were reported to have survival rates of 81% to 100% at 3-, 5-, 9-, 10-year follow-up evaluations. The reinforced glass-ceramic fixed partial dentures showed survival rates of 70% to 93.35% at 5 years, while the alumina FPDs showed a survival rate of 68% at 3 years follow-up. The incidence of caries and loss of vitality were reported as higher for all-ceramic prostheses as compared to the metal-ceramic ones. A significant framework fracture was reported for glass-infiltrated alumina fixed partial dentures in comparison to metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures. All-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations showed similar survival rates after 3 years, although all-ceramic restorations have problems with technical complications such as chipping, which can lead to framework fractures over time.

Effect of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentration and Thermal Cycling on the Bond Strength of Brackets to Ceramic

This study to evaluate the effects of different hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentrations and thermal cycling on the shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets to ceramic. Cylinders of ceramic were divided into 10 groups (n=15), according to HF concentrations: 1-1%;2-2.5%;3-5%;4-7.5%;5-10% (storage 24 h); 6-1%;7-2.5%;8-5%;9-7.5%; and, 10-10% (thermal cycling). All cylinders were etched for 60s and received one layer of silane. Metallic brackets were bonded to the cylinders using Transbond-XT, light activated for 40 s, using a LED (Radii Plus) and stored in deionized water at 37o C for 24h. The groups 6 to 10 were submitted to thermal cycling (7,000 cycles - 5o/55oC). SBS was performed in an Instron at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α=0.05). The Adhesive Remaining Index (ARI) was evaluated at 40x magnification. The different HF acid concentrations influenced on the SBS of the brackets to ceramic (p<0.05). The thermal cycling decreased the SBS of the brackets to ceramic for all acid concentrations (p<0.05). The ARI showed a predominance of scores 0 for all groups, with an increase in scores 1, 2 and 3 for the group storage for 24 h. In conclusion, the different HF acid concentrations 5.0%, 7.5% and 10% influenced on the SBS of brackets to ceramic. The thermal cycling decreased significantly the SBS of brackets to ceramic.

IPS e.max for All-Ceramic Restorations: Clinical Survival and Success Rates of Full-Coverage Crowns and Fixed Partial Dentures

The IPS e.max system by Ivoclar Vivadent, offering a variety of products and indications, is widely used for all-ceramic restorations. We analyzed the clinical track record of these products in daily clinical practice, associating their restorative survival rate with various parameters to define recommendations for long-term stability. A total of 1058 full-coverage crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) were evaluated retrospectively over up to 66.48 (37.05 ± 18.4) months. All were made of IPS e.max Press, IPS e.max CAD, IPS e.max Ceram or IPS e.max ZirPress and had been delivered by a private dental practice within three years. Uses not recommended by the manufacturer were also deliberately included. The five-year cumulative survival was 94.22% (i.e., 94.69% or 90.58% for glass-ceramic crowns or FDPs and 100% or 90.06% for zirconia-based crowns or FDPs). Significantly superior outcomes emerged for conventional vs. adhesive cementation and for vital vs. non-vital abutment teeth, but not for recommended vs. non-recommended uses. Caution is required in restoring non-vital teeth, but the spectrum of recommended uses should generally be reconsidered and expanded, given our finding of high survival and success rates for IPS e.max ceramics, even for uses not currently recommended by the manufacturer.

Efficacy of phototherapy with different conventional surface treatments on adhesive quality of lithium disilicate ceramics

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate shear bond strength (SBS) of LDC and resin composite in combination with phototherapy and different ceramic surface treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Forty Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic (LDC) disks measuring (4 × 4 x 9 mm) were fabricated. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10 each) according to the surface treatment. Group 1 H F + Silane (Control); Group 2 HF + Ultrasonic bath + Silane; Group 3 SECP (Self etch ceramic primer) and Group 4 phototherapy (Er, Cr: YSGG) + Silane. On each ceramic disk a resin build-up was done. For SBS the specimens were subjected to increasing load with a transversal velocity of 1 ml/min on a universal testing machine on a ceramic resin interface. Failure mode was evaluated using digital microscope. The failure modes were divided into adhesive, cohesive and admixed interface. Data through bond strength testing was tabulated using statistical program for social science (SPSS). Means and standard deviations were compared using analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The maximum and minimum bond strength was observed in group 2 [19.58(1.011)] and group 1 [17.14(1.122)] respectively. The bond strength among experimental group 1 [17.14 (1.122)] and group 4 [17.48(1.145)] were found to be comparable. Specimens in Group 2 displayed significantly higher bond strength among all experimental groups. Commonly adhesive failure mode was observed in the present study, with an incidence of 60%, 100% and 70% in groups 1,2 and 3 correspondingly.

CONCLUSION

Phototherapy using laser at frequency 30 Hz and 4.5 W can be used as a surface conditioner for LDC alternate to HF acid. Conditioning of LDC using Self-etch ceramic primer showed better SBS outcomes as compared to phototherapy (Er, Cr: YSGG laser).

Adhesive/silane application effects on bond strength durability to a lithium disilicate ceramic

OBJECTIVE

To test the effects of different adhesive protocols and silane application on the adhesive durability to a Lithium Disilicate reinforced glass ceramic.

METHODS

Forty disks of 13 mm diameter (E.max Press) were used. After etching with 9.5% HF for 20 seconds, disks were randomly assigned into 4 groups according to the adhesive/silane protocol: silane application only (SIL); silane application followed by adhesive (SILXP-XP Bond); silane-containing adhesive (SBU-ScotchBond Universal); silane application followed by silane-containing adhesive (SILSBU). Four resin composite cylinders of 1-mm diameter and 3-mm height were made on each ceramic disk and tested in shear. Specimens were stored in water for 24 hours or 12 months prior to testing. Results were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test.

RESULTS

After 24 hours, the highest SBS values were observed for SILXP and SILSBU. However, after 12 months, SILXP and SILSBU presented a significant reduction in SBS, while the highest SBS were observed for SIL. For SBU, no significant reduction in SBS was observed, however, it showed the lowest SBS after 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the presence of silane in the composition of SBU, previous silane application is still recommended prior to cementation of Lithium Disilicate.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The application of silane as a separate step is recommended prior to cementation of Lithium Disilicate reinforced glass-ceramic, independent of the presence of silane within the universal adhesive solution.

Does acid etching morphologically and chemically affect lithium disilicate glass ceramic surfaces?

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the surface morphology, chemical composition and adhesiveness of lithium disilicate glass ceramic after acid etching with hydrofluoric acid or phosphoric acid.

METHODS

Lithium disilicate glass ceramic specimens polished by 600-grit silicon carbide paper were subjected to one or a combination of these surface treatments: airborne particle abrasion with 50-μm alumina (AA), etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) or 36% phosphoric acid (Phos), and application of silane coupling agent (Si). Stainless steel rods of 3.6-mm diameter and 2.0-mm height were cemented onto treated ceramic surfaces with a self-adhesive resin cement (Clearfil SA Cement). Shear bond strengths between ceramic and cement were measured after 24-hour storage in 37°C distilled water.

RESULTS

SEM images of AA revealed the formation of conventional microretentive grooves, but acid etching with HF or Phos produced a porous surface. Bond strengths of AA+HF+Si (28.1 ± 6.0 MPa), AA+Phos+Si (17.5 ± 4.1 MPa) and HF+Si (21.0 ± 3.0 MPa) were significantly greater than those of non-pretreated controls with Si (9.7 ± 3.7 MPa) and without Si (4.1 ± 2.4 MPa) (p&lt;0.05). In addition, HF etching alone (26.2 ± 7.5 MPa) had significantly higher bond strength than AA alone (11.5 ± 4.0 MPa) (p&lt;0.05). AA+HF, AA+Phos and HF showed cohesive failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Etching with HF or Phos yielded higher bond strength between lithium disilicate glass ceramic and self-adhesive resin cement without microcrack formation.

Retentive strength of implant-supported CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns on zirconia custom abutments using 6 different cements

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The optimal retention of implant-supported ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments is a goal of prosthodontic treatment.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the retentive strength of implant-supported IPS e.max CAD-CAM (e.max) crowns bonded to custom zirconia implant abutments with different cements.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An optical scan of a zirconia custom abutment and a complete-coverage modified crown was designed using an intraoral E4D scanner. One hundred twenty lithium disilicate crowns (IPS e.max CAD) were cemented to 120 zirconia abutment replicas with 1 of 6 cements: Panavia 21 (P21), Multilink Hybrid Abutment (MHA), RelyX Unicem 2 (RXU), RelyX Luting Plus (RLP), Ketac Cem (KC), and Premier Implant (PI). The specimens were stored at 37°C in 100% humidity for 24 hours. Half of the specimens were thermocycled for 500 cycles. The retentive force was measured using a pull-out test with a universal testing machine. Mean retentive strengths (MRS) were calculated using 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The MRS (MPa) after 24-hour storage were P21 (3.1), MHA (2.5), RXU (2.5), RLP (1.3), KC (0.9), and PI (0.5). The MRS after thermocycling were MHA (2.5), P21 (2.2), RLP (1.8), KC (1.4), RXU (1.1), and PI (0.3). P21 had the highest MRS after 24-hour storage (P<.001), but after thermocycling MHA had the highest MRS (P<.001). RXU showed a significant decrease in MRS after thermocycling (P<.05). Cement residue was mostly retained on the zirconia abutments for P21, while for the other cements' residue was retained on the lithium disilicate crowns.

CONCLUSIONS

The cements tested presented a range of retentive strengths, providing the clinician with a choice of more or less retentive cements. MHA was the most retentive cement after thermocycling. Thermocycling significantly affected the retentive strengths of the P21 and RXU cements.

Early complications and performance of 327 heat-pressed lithium disilicate crowns up to five years

PURPOSE

The prospective follow-up aimed to assess the performance of lithium disilicate crowns and clinical reasons of adverse events compromising survival and quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

58 patients were treated with 375 heat-pressed monolithic crowns, which were bonded with resin cement. Annual recalls up to five years included a complete dental examination as well as quality assessment using CDA-criteria. Any need for clinical intervention led to higher complication rate and any failure compromised the survival rate. Kaplan-Meier-method was applied to all crowns and a dataset containing one randomly selected crown from each patient.

RESULTS

Due to drop-outs, 45 patients (31 females, 14 males) with the average age of 43 years (range = 17-73) who had 327 crowns (176 anterior, 151 posterior; 203 upper jaw, 124 lower jaw) were observed and evaluated for between 4 and 51 months (median = 28). Observation revealed 4 chippings, 3 losses of retention, 3 fractures, 3 secondary caries, 1 endodontic problem, and 1 tooth fracture. Four crowns had to be removed. Survival and complication rate was estimated 98.2% and 5.4% at 24 months, and 96.8% and 7.1% at 48 months. The complication rate was significantly higher for root canal treated teeth (12%, P<.01) at 24 months. At the last observation, over 90% of all crowns showed excellent ratings (CDA-rating Alfa) for color, marginal fit, and caries.

CONCLUSION

Heat pressed lithium disilicate crowns showed an excellent performance. Besides a careful luting, dentists should be aware of patients' biological prerequisites (grade of caries, oral hygiene) to reach full success with these crowns.

Evaluation of adhesive bonding of lithium disilicate ceramic material with duel cured resin luting agents

PURPOSE

The purpose of this vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the adhesive bonding of dual cured resin luting agents with lithium disilicate ceramic material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Porcelain laminate veneers were prepared with lithium disilicate ceramic material i.e. IPS Empress II( E-Max Press). These laminates were bonded with RelyX ARC, Panavia F 2.0, Variolink II, Duolink and Nexus NX3.The porcelain laminates were etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (Pulpdent Corporation) for one minute, washed for 15 sec with three way syringe and dried for 15 sec with air syringe. The silane (Ultradent) was applied with the help of applicator tip in a single coat and kept undisturbed for one minute. The prepared surfaces of the premolars were treated with 37% phosphoric acid (Prime dent) for 15 sec, thoroughly rinsed and dried as per manufactures instructions. The shear bond test was carried out on all samples with the Universal testing machine (Instron U.S.A.) The scanning electron microscopic study was performed at the fractured interface of representative samples from each group of luting agents.

RESULT

In this study, the highest value of shear bond strength was obtained for NEXUS NX3 and the lowest for VARIOLINK II.

CONCLUSION

The difference in bond strength can be interpreted as the difference in fracture resistance of luting agents, to which shearing load was applied during the shear bond strength test. It is inferred from this study that the composition of the luting agent determines the adhesive characteristics in addition to surface treatment and bonding surface area.

The Effect of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentration on the Bond Strength and Morphology of the Surface and Interface of Glass Ceramics to a Resin Cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of various concentrations of hydrofluoric acid (HF) on the surface/interface morphology and μ-shear bond strength (μSBS) between IPS Empress Esthetic (EST) (Ivoclar Vivadent) and IPS e.max Press (EMX) (Ivoclar Vivadent) ceramics and resin cement. Ceramic blocks were divided into 12 groups for each kind of ceramic. Six different HF concentrations were evaluated: 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, and 15%. All groups were silanated after etching, and half of the specimens within each group received a thin layer of unfilled resin (UR). Three resin cement cylinders were prepared on each ceramic block for μSBS testing. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. The μSBS test was carried out in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. The data were submitted to three-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey post hoc test (p<0.05). The etched surfaces and bonded interfaces were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. μSBS means (MPa) for 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, and 15% HF concentrations were, respectively, 25.2, 27.2, 30.1, 31.4, 33.3, and 31.8. μSBS means with or without UR application measured 32.24 and 27.4, respectively; EST and EMX measured 29.8 and 29.9, respectively. For the HF concentrations, 10% and 15% showed higher μSBS means than did 1% and 2.5% (p<0.05); 7.5% was higher than 1% (p<0.05); and no statistical differences were found among the other concentrations (p>0.05). When evaluating UR, μSBS mean was significantly higher and better infiltration was observed on the etched surfaces. No statistical difference was found between the ceramics. The HF concentration and UR influenced the bond strength and surface/interface morphology.

Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, silane solution, and adhesive system application on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD) to three resin cements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Circular bonding areas were delimited on the lithium disilicate surfaces using a perforated adhesive tape. Specimens were assigned to 18 subgroups (n=12) according to surface treatment: NT = no treatment; HF = 4.8% HF for 20 seconds; silane solution: (1) no silane; (2) Monobond Plus, a silane/10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate solution for 60 seconds; (3) Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC, a dual-cure adhesive; and resin cement: (1) Variolink II, a bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (bis-GMA)-based, hand-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (2) Multilink Automix, a bis-GMA-based, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (3) RelyX Unicem 2, a self-adhesive, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement. Tygon tubes (Ø=0.8 mm) were used as cylinder matrices for resin cement application. After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were submitted to the μSBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under an optical microscope and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin cement, or cohesive in ceramic. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way analysis of variance and Dunnett test (p<0.05).

RESULTS

When means were pooled for the factor surface treatment, HF resulted in a significantly higher μSBS than did NT (p<0.0001). Regarding the use of a silane solution, the mean μSBS values obtained with Monobond Plus and Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC were not significantly different but were higher than those obtained with no silane (p<0.001). Considering the factor resin cement, Variolink II resulted in a significantly higher mean μSBS than did RelyX Unicem 2 (p<0.03). The mean μSBS for Multilink Automix was not significantly different from those of Variolink II and RelyX Unicem 2. According to Dunnett post hoc test (p<0.05), there was no significant difference in μSBS between the different resin cements for HF-etched and silanized (with or without adhesive application) LD surfaces.

CONCLUSION

LD may benefit from pretreatment of the inner surface with HF and silanization, regardless of the resin cement used.