Effect of etching with low concentration hydrofluoric acid on the bond strength of CAD/CAM resin block

Effects of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Surface Treatments and Composites with Different Viscosities on the Repair Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin Nanoceramic

This study aims to evaluate the repair micro-shear bond strength of the CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic block treated using four different surface treatments and composite resins of different viscosities. For the current study, 96 samples with dimensions of 14 × 12 × 2 mm were obtained from a CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic block (Cerasmart) with a low-speed precision cutting saw under water cooling. The relevant samples were randomly divided into four groups according to the surface treatment processes: grinding with diamond bur, aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion, long-pulse laser, and short-pulse laser. Following silane application, universal adhesive was applied to all surface-treated samples and cured with an LED for 10 s. The samples prepared for the repair procedure were divided into two subgroups (microhybrid composite and injectable composite) according to the viscosity of the repair material to be used (n = 12). After the repair procedure, care was taken to keep the samples in distilled water in an incubator at 37 °C for 24 h. The repair micro-shear bond strength values (μSBSs) of CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic-composite resin complexes were tested. In addition, randomly selected samples from each group were examined with a scanning electron microscope to evaluate the surface topography after both surface treatments and the micro-shear bond strength test. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test. It was determined that the surface treatment preferred in the repair protocol significantly affected the μSBS value (p < 0.001). While the highest μSBS value was obtained with the short-pulse laser airradiation group, the lowest μSBS values were found in samples with long pulse laser irradiation. However, samples grinded with a bur and airborne-particle abrasion showed similar μSBS values (p > 0.05). The preferred composite viscosity in the repair procedure has a significant effect on the μSBS value (p < 0.001). However, the interaction between the surface treatment and the viscosity of the repair composite does not affect the μSBS values in a statistically significant way (p = 0.193). It may be recommended to clinicians to repair CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic restoration surfaces with injectable composites or after treatment with short-pulse lasers.

Different surface treatments on recently introduced CAD-CAM resin-modified ceramics: Implications on bond strength

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The diverse chemical composition of recently introduced resin-modified ceramics complicates the establishment of a universally accepted clinical bonding protocol.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments of resin-modified ceramics on the bond strength to a resin cement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixteen 10×12×3-mm resin-modified ceramic slices were obtained from each material (Cerasmart; GC, Shofu Block HC; Shofu, Vita Enamic; Vita, Evolux hybrid; BlueDent, Alium; Alium). Slices were assigned to 4 groups based on surface treatments: Control (no treatment), airborne-particle abrasion with Al2O3 (Al2O3), conditioning with 9% HF (HF), and Al2O3+HF. After treatments and silane coupling agent (Monobond N; Ivoclar) application, 7 resin cement cylinders (Choice 2 veneer; Bisco) were built on each slice and light polymerized for 20 seconds. Half of the specimens (n=14 cylinders) were stored for 24 hours, and the other half were thermocycled (20 000 cycles, 5 °C to 55 °C, 30-second dwell time). Microshear bond strength was tested and analyzed with 3-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α=.05), and failure patterns were classified. Surface morphology after treatments was observed with scanning electron microscopy and Raman spectroscopy.

RESULTS

After 24 hours, all treatments induced higher bond strength (P<.05) than in the control in Evolux. Al2O3+HF caused higher bond strength (P<.05) than in the control in Cerasmart and Shofu, and higher bond strength than Al2O3 in Cerasmart. However, it resulted in lower bond strength (P<.05) than Al2O3 in Alium. After thermocycling, irrespective of the resin-modified ceramic, all treatments induced higher bond strength (P<.05) than in the control. HF induced lower bond strength (P<.05) than Al2O3 in Alium. Al2O3+HF caused the highest bond strength (P<.05) in Evolux and higher bond strength (P<.05) than HF in Vita Enamic. Adhesive failures were prevalent under control conditions, and mixed failures were common after treatments. Al2O3 induced surface alterations in all resin-modified ceramics. HF notably altered Vita Enamic, while it had no noticeable impact on the other resin-modified ceramics. Al2O3+HF caused a considerable alteration in Vita Enamic and modified the other resin-modified ceramics. Vita Enamic had the characteristic vibrational bands of inorganic compounds, while the other resin-modified ceramics exhibited distinct bands associated with organic compounds.

CONCLUSIONS

Airborne-particle abrasion with Al2O3 followed by HF yielded the highest bond strength, regardless of the resin-modified ceramic, except for Alium, which demonstrated better bond strength after airborne-particle abrasion with Al2O3. 9% HF for 30 seconds caused notable surface alterations in Vita Enamic, negatively impacting its bond strength. Vita Enamic was the only resin-modified ceramic displaying both organic and inorganic composition, while the other resin-modified ceramics showed predominantly organic composition.

Comparison of the shear bond strengths of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework materials and CAD-CAM veneer materials

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and CAD-CAM materials after aging.

METHODS

A total of 42 frameworks were designed and milled from 2 different PEEK discs (Copra Peek, P and BioHPP, B). P and B frameworks were divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7). 14 slices were prepared each from feldspathic ceramic (Vitablocs Mark II, VM), hybrid nanoceramic (Cerasmart, CS), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic, VE) blocks. After surface preparations, the slices were cemented to P and B surfaces. The samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles). SBS of all the samples was measured. Fractured surfaces were examined by SEM/EDX analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk, Two-way Robust ANOVA and Bonferroni correction tests were used to analyze the data (a = .05).

RESULTS

Frameworks, ceramics, and frameworks x ceramics had significant differences (p < 0.05). The highest SBS value was seen in B-VM (p < 0.05). VM offered the highest SBS with both P and B. The differences between P-VM, P-CS, P-VE and B-CS and B-VE were insignificant (p > 0.05). According to EDX analysis, ytterbium and fluorine was seen in B content, unlike P. While VM and CS contained fluorine, barium, and aluminum; sodium and aluminum were observed in the VE structure.

CONCLUSION

Bonding of P and B with VM offers higher SBS. VM, CS and VE did not make any difference in SBS for P, however VM showed a significant difference for B.

The effect of repair protocols and chewing simulation on the microtensile bond strength of two resin matrix ceramics to composite resin

BACKGROUND

To assess the micro tensile bond strength (µTBS) of two resin matrix ceramic (RMC) blocks bonded to composite resin by using different repair protocols with and without chewing simulation (CS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two resin matrix ceramic blocks (Vita Enamic and Lava Ultimate) were divided into 4 groups according to the surface treatments: Bur grinding (control), Bur grinding + silane, 9.5% HF acid etching, and 9.5% HF acid etching + silane. The single bond universal adhesive was applied on all specimens after the surface treatments according to the manufacturer's instructions, it was administered actively on the treated surface for 20 s and then light cured for 10 s, followed by incremental packing of composite resin to the treated surface. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups (with/without chewing simulation for 500,000 cycles). A micro tensile bond strength test was performed for each group (n = 15). The effect of surface treatments on the materials was examined by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The micro tensile bond strength (MPa) data were analyzed with a three-way ANOVA, the independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post-hoc test.

RESULTS

µTBS results were significantly higher for Lava Ultimate than Vita Enamic for all the surface treatment protocols with (p < 0.01). The chewing simulation significantly negatively affected the micro-tensile bond strength (p < 0.001). Bur grinding + saline exhibited the highest bond strength values for Lava Ultimate, both with and without chewing simulation. For Vita Enamic, bur grinding + saline and HF acid + saline showed significantly higher bond strength values compared to other surface treatments, both with and without chewing simulation (p ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Bur grinding + silane could be recommended as a durable repair protocol for indirect resin matrix ceramics blocks with composite resin material.

Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network

Background: Polymer infiltrated ceramic networks, or hybrid ceramics, are a combination of infiltrating polymerizable organic monomers into a pre-sintered porous ceramic matrix. In addition to having good mechanical properties, the polymer infiltrated ceramic network must comply with the possibility of adequate bonding to the resinous cement. The surface conditioning of this hybrid material must be carefully considered due to its organic composition and ceramic network. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid and a self-etching ceramic primer, under two different application times, on the bond strength of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network. Methods: Blocks of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network were cut to obtain sheets, and these were randomized into five groups. For the group termed AAS, airborne-particle abrasion with Al 2O 3 (aluminum oxide) of 50µm was used. For groups HF2 and HF6, hydrofluoric acid was used for 20 and 60 seconds respectively, and for the groups MB2 and MB6, a self-etch ceramic primer was applied for 20 and 60 seconds respectively. A silane was applied to the groups AAS, HF2, and HF6 after the treatment. After 24-hour storage in distilled water, a micro-shear bond strength test was performed using a universal mechanical testing machine. All samples were evaluated in a stereomicroscope at 40x and 50x to determine the type of failure. Results: The highest and lowest values of bond strength were reported by groups MB6 and AAS, respectively. Groups HF2, HF6, MB6, and MB2 did not report statistically significant differences. The predominant failure pattern was a mixed failure. Conclusions: With the limitations of the present investigation, the treatments of self-etching ceramic primer and hydrofluoric acid followed by silane were reported to be statistically equal at 20 and 60 seconds.