Effect of surface pretreatments on the microtensile bond strength of lithium-disilicate ceramic repaired with composite resin

Repair protocols for indirect monolithic restorations: a literature review

Despite the advancements in indirect monolithic restorations, technical complications may occur during function. To overcome this issues, intraoral repair using resin composite is a practical and low-cost procedure, being able to increase the restoration's longevity. This review aimed to evaluate the need for repair and suggest a standardized repair protocol to the main indirect restorative materials. For this, studies were surveyed from PubMed with no language or date restriction, to investigate the scientific evidence of indirect monolithic restoration repair with direct resin composite. A classification to guide clinical decisions was made based on the FDI World Dental Federation criteria about defective indirect restorations considering esthetic and functional standards, along with the patient's view, to decide when polishing, repairing or replacing a defective restoration. Based on 38 surveyed studies, different resin composite intraoral repair protocols, that included mechanical and chemical aspects, were defined depending on the substrate considering resin-based, glass-ceramic or zirconia restorations. The presented criteria and protocols were developed to guide the clinician's decision-making process regarding defective indirect monolithic restorations, prolonging longevity and increasing clinical success.

Do different protocols affect the success rate or bond strength of glass-ceramics repaired with composite resin? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral repair techniques prevent unnecessary replacement of ceramic restorations, thereby increasing the survival rate. However, adhesion between ceramics and the composite resin is challenging and how different protocols influence adhesion is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the influence of different protocols on repairing glass-ceramic surfaces with composite resins.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases were searched to select studies comparing bond strength values or survival rates of glass-ceramic repaired with composite resins using different surface treatment protocols. No publication year or language restriction was applied. Data sets were extracted from all included studies, and the mean differences calculated. A 95% confidence interval was calculated by using the random effect model (Rev Man 5.4).

RESULTS

The search identified 5037 studies, and 165 were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 123 in vitro studies were included in the systematic review and 48 in the meta-analysis. Considering different glass-ceramics, bond strength tests, and aged or not aged specimens, 37 meta-analyses found the effect of repair protocols: only adhesive, silane plus adhesive alone or preceded by hydrofluoric (HF) acid, airborne-particle abrasion (APA) with Al2O3 particles, silica-coated APA (SCAPA), diamond rotary instrument (DRI), and laser irradiation (LI).

CONCLUSIONS

For feldspathic porcelain, HF acid, APA, SCAPA, or DRI improved the repair micromechanical retention; applying silane is essential to HF-conditioned surfaces but the use of adhesive is optional when silane is applied. Results for leucite and lithium disilicate were inconclusive in terms of suggesting a treatment other than HF acid plus silane and adhesive applications.

The Use of Warm Air for Solvent Evaporation in Adhesive Dentistry: A Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Any excess solvent from dental adhesive systems must be eliminated prior to material photopolymerization. For this purpose, numerous approaches have been proposed, including the use of a warm air stream. This study aimed to investigate the effect of different temperatures of warm air blowing used for solvent evaporation on the bond strength of resin-based materials to dental and nondental substrates. Two different reviewers screened the literature in diverse electronic databases. In vitro studies recording the effect of warm air blowing to evaporate solvents of adhesive systems on the bond strength of resin-based materials to direct and indirect substrates were included. A total of 6626 articles were retrieved from all databases. From this, 28 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and 27 remained for the quantitative analysis. The results of the meta-analysis for etch-and-rinse adhesives revealed that the use of warm air for solvent evaporation was statistically significantly higher (p = 0.005). For self-etch adhesives and silane-based materials, this effect was observed too (p < 0.001). The use of a warm air stream for solvent evaporation enhanced the bonding performance of alcohol-/water-based adhesive systems for dentin. This effect seems to be similar when a silane coupling agent is submitted to a heat treatment before the cementation of a glass-based ceramic.

Influence of resin removal treatments on the surface topography and strength of de-bonded lithium disilicate ceramic

AIM

This study aims to assess the influence of resin removal treatment regimes on the surface topography and compressive strength of de-bonded ceramic surfaces.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-five lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC) discs were prepared, cleaned, and polished with carbide paper. All samples were etched using 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HFA). Fifteen samples were taken as positive controls; the remaining 50 samples were subjected to the process of silanization. Resin build-up using dual-cure cement was performed incrementally and light cured. Based on different methods of resin cleaning from de-bonded LDC, the samples were divided into five groups, n=10 each: group 1 (no treatment), group 2 (slow-speed diamond bur), group 3 (1 min heat treatment), Group 4 (6 min heat treatment), and group 5 (sandblasting with Al₂O₃). Following resin removal, LDC samples were tested under compressive failure load in a universal testing machine. Five disc specimens from each group were sputter coated with gold for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test was used for descriptive statistics. Level of significance was established at p<0.05.

RESULTS

The highest compressive strength with significant difference among all experimental groups was found in group 5 (321.54 ± 13.25 MPa) (p<0.05). The lowest compressive strength values, presenting significant difference compared with all other groups, were displayed in group 1 (158.57 ± 5.22 MPa) (p<0.05). Compressive strength among group 2 (231.54 ± 15.55 MPa), group 3 (237.81 ± 10.81 MPa), and group 4 (255.53 ± 8.95 MPa) specimens was statistically comparable (p>0.05). On SEM, heat-treated specimens confirmed coarser granules, with mild porosities and roughening, whereas sandblasted specimens exhibited consistent evenness with moderate porosity and loss of glazed surface.

CONCLUSION

De-bonded LDC surface, treated with heat treatment and sandblasting procedures, exhibited removal of residual resin and significantly high compressive strength compared with non-cleansed ceramic surface.

Comparison of Silane Heat Treatment by Laser and Various Surface Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin/Lithium Disilicate

In the current study, we evaluated the effects of heat treatment (by Er:YAG or furnace) and various surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of silanized lithium disilicate ceramic. Seventy lithium disilicate (IPS e. max Press; Ivoclar Vivadent) and composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram; Ivoclar Vivadent) blocks were made and distributed into seven groups (n = 10) at random: S: silanization alone; ALS: airborne particle abrasion (APA) and silanization; SC: APA modified with silica and silanization; SHT1: silanization and heat treatment by Er:YAG; SHT2: silanization and heat treatment performed in the furnace (100 °C, 1 min); HF: etching with HF; and HFS: etching with HF and silanization. Every ceramic specimen was cemented to a composite resin block after surface treatment. Cemented specimens were embedded into acrylic resin and were tested with the μTBS test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane T2 tests (α = 0.05). The SHT1 group had the highest bond of strength compared to the other groups (27.46 MPa). The ALS group had the lowest strength of the groups (15.56 MPa). Between SHT2 and HFS (p = 1), the comparison of the mean µTBS values showed no significant differences. It was concluded that silane heat treatment increased the resin composite–ceramic bond strength; however, within the terms of μTBS, the Er:YAG laser treatment was more successful than other surface treatment applications.

The effect of silane and universal adhesives on the micro-shear bond strength of current resin-matrix ceramics

PURPOSE

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of silane and universal adhesive applications on the micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) of different resin-matrix ceramics (RMCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 120 slides (14 × 12 × 1 mm) were produced from 5 different RMC materials (GC Cerasmart [GC]; Brilliant Crios [BC]; Grandio blocs [GB]; Katana Avencia [KA]; and KZR-CAD HR 2 [KZR]) and sandblasted using 50 µm Al₂O₃ particles. Each RMC material was divided into six groups according to the surface conditioning (SC) method as follows: control (G1), silane primer (G2), silane-free universal adhesive (G3), silane-containing universal adhesive (G4), silane primer and silane-free universal adhesive (G5), and silane primer and silane-containing universal adhesive (G6). Three cylindric specimens made from resin cement (Bifix QM) were polymerized over the treated surface of each slide (n = 12). After thermal cycling (10000 cycles, 5 – 55℃), µSBS test was performed and failure types were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = .05).

RESULTS

µSBS values of specimens were significantly affected by the RMC type and SC protocols (P < .001) except the interaction (P = .119). Except for G2, all SC protocols showed a significant increase in µSBS values (P < .05). For all RMCs, the highest µSBS values were obtained in G4 and G6 groups.

CONCLUSION

Only silane application did not affect the µSBS values regardless of the RMC type. Moreover, the application of a separate silane in addition to the universal adhesives did not improve the µSBS values. Silane-containing universal adhesive was found to be the best conditioning method for RMCs.

Effect of Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives on the Bonding Strength of Lithium Disilicate

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of silane-containing universal adhesives on the bonding strength of lithium disilicate. Two-hundred-and-forty lithium disilicate blocks were divided into 16 groups according to the following surface treatments: hydrofluoric acid (HF)-treated or not, silane-treated or not, and the type of universal adhesive used (All-Bond Universal (ABU); Prime & bond (PB); Clearfil Universal Bond (CU); Single bond Universal (SBU)). After surface treatment, resin discs were bonded to each lithium disilicate using dual-cure resin cement. Bonded specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h and then subjected to microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test. Failure modes were examined under stereomicroscope. Microscopic observation of bonded interfaces was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. The μTBS data were statistically analyzed. Regardless of silane treatment, all groups treated with HF showed higher bonding strengths compared to those that were not treated with HF (p < 0.05). In groups treated with HF, the bonding strength increased after silane application (p < 0.05) except PB and CU (p > 0.05). Adhesive failures were dominant in all groups, but some mixed failures were observed in ABU treated with HF and silane. While most of the specimens that were not treated with silane after HF application only showed loose bonding between the ceramic and resin cement due to partial gaps, the specimens treated with silane application after HF showed a tight ceramic–resin interface. In conclusion, the silane in universal adhesives did not effectively improve the bonding strength between lithium disilicate and resin cement.

Repair strength and surface topography of lithium disilicate and hybrid resin ceramics with LLLT and photodynamic therapy in comparison to hydrofluoric acid

AIM

The aim was to compare the repair bond strength and surface topography of lithium disilicate ceramics (LDC) and hybrid resin ceramics (HRC) using different surface conditioning treatments [low level laser therapy (LLLT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), hydrofluoric acid (HF) with silane and air abrasion (AA) and silane].

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Sixty specimens each of LDC and HRC were used. Discs were prepared for each group (6 × 2 mm), conditioned using different regimes. Specimens in group 1 and 5 were laser irradiated using Er,Cr:YSGG (ECYL), group 2 and 6 were conditioned using methylene blue photosensitizer (PDT), group 3 and 7 surface was treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFA-S), group 4 and 8 conditioned with Al₂O₃ air abrasion and silane (AA-S). A Porcelain Repair Kit was used according to manufacturer recommendation in all samples. Peak universal bond adhesive was rubbed on ceramic surface and then bonded with composite resin. For shear bond strength testing the specimens were placed in a universal testing machine. A stereomicroscope at 40x magnification was used to analyse failure pattern. Five specimens in each group after surface treatment were evaluated for surface changes and topography using scanning electron microscopy. The mean repair bond strength was calculated using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test at a significance level of (p < 0.05).

RESULT

The highest repair bond strength was observed in group 3 (LDC) (20.57 ± 3.58 MPa) (HFA-S), whereas, the lowest score was displayed in Group 2 (LDC) using methylene blue photosensitizer (MBPS) (12.18 ± 1.08 MPa). Similarly, in HRC the highest repair SBS was presented in group 8 (AA-S) (20.52 ± 2.51 MPa) and the lowest SBS values were exhibited by PDT treated group 6 (13.22 ± 0.62 MPa).

CONCLUSION

A combination of mechanical and chemical surface treatments should be used in order to achieve adequate repair bond strength between resin composites and ceramic interface of LDC and HRC.

Evaluation of bond strength of dual resin cements to CAD/CAM-created lithium disilicate ceramic

BACKGROUND

The objective was to examine the microshear bond strength values of different dual resin cements to computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-created ceramics containing lithium disilicate, which underwent different surface treatments.

METHODS

Two dual resin cements (RelyX ARC and RelyX Ultimate) and three surface treatments of lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (Ceramic Primer (CP; containing silane) plus Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose (ASM) adhesive; CP plus Single Bond Universal (SBU) adhesive; and SBU adhesive alone) were tested. The SBU adhesive includes silane in its formulation. Each sample underwent a microshear test and bond strength values were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's test (α=0.05). Fracture patterns were also observed with light microscopy.

RESULTS

RelyX ARC treated with CP+ASM or CP+SBU presented resistance values that were significantly higher than the same treatments for RelyX Ultimate. Conversely, for the blocks treated with SBU alone, the mean resistance value for RelyX Ultimate was higher than that of RelyX ARC. Regarding the different types of treatment for each resin, the mean resistance value of RelyX ARC treated with CP+ASM was significantly highest, followed by treatment with CP+SBU and SBU treatment alone. Meanwhile, RelyX Ultimate treated with CP+ASM or CP+SBU presented resistance values that were significantly higher than SBU treatment alone. In all of the groups, an adhesive fracture pattern was predominantly observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results indicate that silanization is important for ASM and SBU adhesives to be effective.

Effect of surface treatments and universal adhesive application on the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM materials

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of four computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks repaired with composite resin using three different surface treatment protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four different CAD/CAM blocks were used in this study: (1) flexible hybrid ceramic (FHC), (2) resin nanoceramic (RNC), (c) polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) and (4) feldspar ceramic (FC). All groups were further divided into four subgroups according to surface treatment: control, hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), air-borne particle abrasion with aluminum oxide (AlO), and tribochemical silica coating (TSC). After surface treatments, silane was applied to half of the specimens. Then, a silane-containing universal adhesive was applied, and specimens were repaired with a composite, Next, μSBS test was performed. Additional specimens were examined with a contact profilometer and scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests.

RESULTS

The findings revealed that silane application yielded higher µSBS values (P<.05). All surface treatments were showed a significant increase in µSBS values compared to the control (P<.05). For FHC and RNC, the most influential treatments were AlO and TSC (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

Surface treatment is mandatory when the silane is not preferred, but the best bond strength values were obtained with the combination of surface treatment and silane application. HF provides improved bond strength when the ceramic content of material increases, whereas AlO and TSC gives improved bond strength when the composite content of material increases.

Simplified Surface Treatments for Ceramic Cementation: Use of Universal Adhesive and Self-Etching Ceramic Primer

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of resin cement and lithium disilicate ceramic after various surface treatments of the ceramic. Sixty blocks of ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) were obtained. After cleaning, they were placed in polyvinyl chloride tubes with acrylic resin. The blocks were divided into six groups (n=10) depending on surface treatment: H/S/A - 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane + Adhesive, H/S -10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane, H/S/UA - 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane + Universal Adhesive, H/UA- 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Universal Adhesive, MBEP/A - Monobond Etch & Prime + Adhesive, and MBEP - Monobond Etch & Prime. The light-cured resin cement (Variolink Esthetic LC, Ivoclar Vivadent) was inserted in a mold placed over the treated area of the ceramics and photocured with an LED for 20 s to produce cylinders (3 mm x 3 mm). The samples were subjected to a shear bond strength test in a universal test machine (Instron 5965) by 0.5 mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey tests showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p<0.05). The results of the shear strength test were H/S/A (9.61±2.50)^A, H/S (10.22±3.28)^A, H/S/UA (7.39±2.02)^ABC, H/UA (4.28±1.32)^C, MBEP/A (9.01±1.97)^AB, and MBEP (6.18±2.75)^BC. The H/S group showed cohesive failures, and the H/UA group was the only one that presented adhesive failures. The conventional treatment with hydrofluoric acid and silane showed the best bond strength. The use of a new ceramic primer associated with adhesive bonding obtained similar results to conventional surface treatment, being a satisfactory alternative to replace the use of hydrofluoric acid.

The effect of surface treatment with a fractional carbon dioxide laser on shear bond strength of resin cement to a lithium disilicate-based ceramic

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the impact of different surface treatments, including fractional carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser on shear bond strength (SBS) of resin cement to lithium disilicate ceramic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this in vitro study, 72 blocks of IPS e.max CAD ceramic were randomly divided into six groups in terms of treatment (n = 12). Group 1 underwent etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric (HF) acid, whereas group 2 was subjected to air abrasion with aluminum oxide particles. Groups 3 and 4 were treated with a fractional CO₂ laser for 10 s using 10 W/14 mJ (group 3) or 20 W/10 mJ (group 4). In groups 5 and 6, the CO₂ laser was applied similar to that in groups 3 and 4, respectively; then, the specimens were etched by HF acid. After silane application, luting cement was bonded to the specimens. The SBS was assessed with a universal testing machine, and the type of bond failure was determined. Data were analyzed by ANOVA, Duncan, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Surface conditioning with fractional CO₂ laser alone resulted in significantly lower SBS than HF acid treatment (P < 0.05). Bond strengths of the specimens treated with a combination of laser irradiation and acid etching were significantly greater than all the other groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the distribution of failure modes among the groups (P = 0.337).

CONCLUSION

The combination of fractional CO₂ laser irradiation and HF acid etching could be recommended when extra retention is required for lithium disilicate-based restorations, whereas laser treatment alone cannot produce sufficient SBS.

Influence of Surface Treatments and Adhesive Systems on Lithium Disilicate Microshear Bond Strength

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microshear bond strength of ceramic prosthetic structures reinforced by lithium disilicate cemented with resin cement under conditions of different surface treatments and adhesive systems. Seventy-two rectangular blocks of lithium disilicate (6.5 mm long × 5 mm wide × 1 mm thick) were fabricated, air abraded with 50-μm Al2O3 particles and divided into six groups (n=12) depending on the surface pretreatments. The groups were as follows: 10HF/S/SBM: 10% hydrofluoric acid etched for 20 s (10HF) + silane (S) + Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBM); 10HF/S/SB: 10HF + S + Single Bond Universal (SB); 10HF/SBM; 10HF/SB; S/SBM and S/SB. Two 1-mm-long plastic tubes were placed on the specimens, filled with RelyX ARC resin cement and cured for 20 s per tube. The plastic tube was removed, and the microshear bond strength was tested. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Tukey's tests (α=0.05). Fractured specimens were observed under optical microscopy. For both adhesives, the bond strengths (MPa) of groups treated with acid-etching and silane (10HF/S/SB: 24.82, 10HF/S/SBM: 24.90) were higher (p<0.001) than those of groups treated with acid-etching (10HF/SB: 16.47, 10HF/SBM: 19.94) only or only silane (S/SB: 18.42, S/SBM: 13.24). All groups showed a predominance of failure adhesive. The silanization should be a clinical step in cementing ceramic structures reinforced by lithium disilicate, even with the application of universal adhesive that contains silane in its formulation.

Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to CAD/CAM resin-ceramic hybrid materials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to thermocycled and non-thermocycled CAD/CAM resin-ceramic hybrid materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

120 specimens (10×10×2 mm) from each material were divided into 12 groups according to different surface treatments in combination with thermal aging procedures. Surface treatment methods were airborne-particle abrasion (abraded with 50 micron alumina particles), dry grinding (grinded with 125 µm grain size bur), and hydrofluoric acid (9%) and silane application. According to the thermocycling procedure, the groups were assigned as non-thermocycled, thermocycled after packing composites, and thermocycled before packing composites. The average surface roughness of the non-thermocycled specimens were measured after surface treatments. After packing composites and thermocycling procedures, shear bond strength (SBS) of the specimens were tested. The results of surface roughness were statistically analyzed by 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and SBS results were statistically analyzed by 3-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Surface roughness of GC were significantly lower than that of LU and VE (P<.05). The highest surface roughness was observed for dry grinding group, followed by airborne particle abraded group (P<.05). Comparing the materials within the same surface treatment method revealed that untreated surfaces generally showed lower SBS values. The values of untreated LU specimens showed significantly different SBS values compared to those of other surface treatment groups (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

SBS was affected by surface treatments. Thermocycling did not have any effect on the SBS of the materials except acid and silane applied GC specimens, which were subjected to thermocycling before packing of the composite resin.

The Effect of Hydrofluoric Acid Etching Duration on the Surface Micromorphology, Roughness, and Wettability of Dental Ceramics

The current laboratory study is evaluating the effect of hydrofluoric acid etching duration on the surface characteristics of five silica-based glass ceramics. Changes in the pore pattern, crystal structure, roughness, and wettability were compared and evaluated. Seventy-five rectangularly shaped specimens were cut from each material (IPS e-max™, Dentsply Celtra™, Vita Suprinity™, Vita mark II™, and Vita Suprinity FC™); the sectioned samples were finished, polished, and ultrasonically cleaned. Specimens were randomly assigned into study groups: control (no etching) and four experimental groups (20, 40, 80 and 160 s of etching). The etched surfaces’ microstructure including crystal structure, pore pattern, pore depth, and pore width was studied under a scanning electron microscope, and the surface roughness and wettability were analyzed using a non-contact surface profilometer and a contact angle measuring device, respectively. The results were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post hoc Tukey’s test. The results showed a significant change in the pore number, pore pattern, crystal structure, surface roughness, and wettability with increased etching duration. Etching for a short time resulted in small pores, and etching for longer times resulted in wider, irregular grooves. A significant increase in the surface roughness and wettability was observed with an increase in the etching duration. The findings also suggested a strong association between the surface roughness and wettability.

Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate restorations after endodontic access preparation: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Endodontic access preparation through a lithium disilicate restoration is a frequently encountered clinical situation. The common practice of repairing the accessed crown with composite resin may result in a weakened restoration.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the effect of endodontic access preparation on the fracture resistance and microstructural integrity of monolithic pressed and monolithic milled lithium disilicate complete coverage restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty monolithic pressed (IPS e.max Press) and 20 monolithic milled (IPS e.max CAD) lithium disilicate restorations were fabricated. Ten of the pressed and 10 of the milled crowns were accessed for a simulated endodontic treatment and subsequently repaired by using a porcelain repair system and composite resin. All specimens were submitted to cyclic loading and then loaded to failure. Force data were recorded and analyzed with 2-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc test (Sidak correction) to indicate significant differences among the groups (α=.05). A Weibull analysis was also performed for each group. Eight (4 pressed and 4 milled) additional restorations were fabricated to complete a scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis and evaluate the surface damage created by the endodontic access preparation.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference (P=.019) was found between the pressed intact and pressed repaired restorations and between the pressed intact and milled repaired restorations (P=.002). Specimens that were examined with an SEM showed edge chipping involving primarily the glaze layer around the access openings.

CONCLUSIONS

Endodontic access preparation of lithium disilicate restorations resulted in a significantly reduced load to failure in the pressed specimens, but not in the milled specimens.

Surface treatments for repair of feldspathic, leucite - and lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramics using composite resin

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a restorative composite repair in three types of dental ceramics: lithium disilicate-reinforced, leucite-reinforced and feldspathic. Twelve blocks were sintered for each type of ceramic (n=3) and stored for 3 months in distilled water at 37 °C. The bonding surface of ceramics was abraded with 600-grit SiC paper. Surface treatments for each ceramic were: GC (control) - none; GDB - diamond bur #30 µm; GHF - hydrofluoric acid (10%); GT- tribochemical silica coating (45-μm size particles). Treatments were followed by cleaning with phosphoric acid 37% for 20 s + silane + adhesive. The composite resin was used as restorative material. After repair, samples were subjected to thermocycled ageing (10,000 cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C for 30 s). Thereafter, the samples were sectioned into 1.0 mm2 sticks and tested for microtensile bond strength with 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were compared by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The superficial wear with diamond bur proved to be suitable for feldspathic porcelain and for leucite-reinforced glass ceramic while hydrofluoric acid-etching is indicated for repairs in lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic; tribochemical silica coating is applicable to leucite-reinforced ceramic. Predominance of adhesive failures was observed (>85% in all groups). In conclusion, the success of surface treatments depends on the type of ceramic to be repaired.

Influence of Etching Protocol and Silane Treatment with a Universal Adhesive on Lithium Disilicate Bond Strength

OBJECTIVES

To measure the effects of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching and silane prior to the application of a universal adhesive on the bond strength between lithium disilicate and a resin.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sixty blocks of lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were sectioned into coupons and polished. Specimens were divided into six groups (n=10) based on surface pretreatments, as follows: 1) no treatment (control); 2) 5% HF etch for 20 seconds (5HF); 3) 9.5% HF etch for 60 seconds (9.5HF); 4) silane with no HF (S); 5) 5% HF for 20 seconds + silane (5HFS); and 6) 9.5% HF for 60 seconds + silane (9.5HFS). All etching was followed by rinsing, and all silane was applied in one coat for 20 seconds and then dried. The universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal, 3M ESPE) was applied onto the pretreated ceramic surface, air thinned, and light cured for 10 seconds. A 1.5-mm-diameter plastic tube filled with Z100 composite (3M ESPE) was applied over the bonded ceramic surface and light cured for 20 seconds on all four sides. The specimens were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles (5°C-50°C/15 s dwell time). Specimens were loaded until failure using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The peak failure load was used to calculate the shear bond strength. Scanning electron microscopy images were taken of representative e.max specimens from each group.

RESULTS

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that there were significant differences between HF etching, silane treatment, and the interaction between HF and silane treatment (p<0.01). Silane treatment provided higher shear bond strength regardless of the use or concentration of the HF etchant. Individual one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc analyses were performed for each silane group. Shear bond strength values for each etch time were significantly different (p<0.01) and could be divided into significantly different groups based on silane treatment: no silane treatment: 0 HF < 5% HF < 9.5% HF; and RelyX silane treatment: 0 HF < 5% HF and 9.5% HF.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HF and silane treatment significantly improved the bond strength between resin and lithium disilicate when used with a universal adhesive.