Effect of active application of self-etching ceramic primer on the long-term bond strength of different dental CAD/CAM materials

Modified Experimental Adhesive with Sepiolite Nanoparticles on Caries Dentin Treated with Femtosecond laser and Photodynamic Activated Erythrosine. An invitro study

AIM

To assess the effect of CAD surface conditioners and their effect on Ra and SBS of tooth-colored filling material adhered to CAD surface with adhesive modified with 1 % Sep-NPs. Also, the DC of modified EA and its effect on the rheological properties.

METHODS

Ninety human molars with carious extension up to the middle third of occlusal dentin were included. The teeth were then arbitrarily allocated into three groups based on the type of surface conditioning received (n=30) Group 1 (PA), Group 2 (FS laser), and Group 3 (Ery PS). Ten samples from each group underwent Ra analysis using a stylus profiler. Twenty samples from each cohort were distributed into two subcategories based on the application of unmodified EA (A) and Sep-infiltrated EA (B). Composite restoration was built followed by SBS and failure mode analysis. Scanning electron microscopy and Energy dispersive X-ray EDX were assessed of sepiolite NPs. Degree of conversion (DC) and rheological analysis of the modified adhesive and unmodified adhesive were also performed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey post hoc test were employed to conduct comparisons between the different groups RESULTS The highest score of Ra and bond strength were displayed by Group 1B (PA + Sep-NPs filled EA) (17.32 ± 1.43 MPa) samples. Nevertheless, the lowest values were established by Group 3A (Ery-PS + EA) (13.45 ±0.80 MPa) treated teeth. An increase in Ra resulted in a rise in SBS.DC decreased with the incorporation of 1% Sep-NPs in EA compared to unmodified EA.

CONCLUSION

Conditioning of CAD with PA and FS laser shows high surface roughness and favorable adhesion to experimental adhesive modified with 1% Sep-NPs. Modified adhesive with 1% Sep-NPs decreases DC and rheological properties.

Effect of Surface Treatment and Resin Cement on the Bond Strength of an Advanced Lithium Disilicate

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and resin cement on the bond strength of conventional and advanced lithium disilicates (ALDs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Ceramic slices (2 × 13 × 15 mm) of conventional lithium disilicate (LD) (IPS e.max CAD) and ALD (CEREC Tessera) were sectioned, polished, and divided into 16 groups (n = 10) according to the factors: ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement (Panavia V5 and Variolink Esthetic DC). Surface treatments consisted of hydrofluoric acid 4.9% etching for 20 seconds (Hf20) or 30 seconds (Hf30), self-etching ceramic primer (Se), and sandblasting (Sb). Then, a resin cement cylinder (Ø = 2.5 mm) was manufactured on each specimen's surface. The specimens were then submitted to a shear bond strength (SBS) test. Surface roughness was evaluated through a contact profilometer, and surface morphology was evaluated under scanning electron microscopy for qualitative analysis.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data of SBS and surface roughness. For bond strength, the effects of surface treatment, resin cement, and the interaction were analyzed for each ceramic. For roughness, analyzed factors include ceramic and surface treatment.

RESULTS

 ANOVA revealed that ceramic (p = 0.047) and surface treatment (p < 0.001) factors affected the bond strength, while the cements performed similarly. Both materials showed adequate bond strength (ALD 19.1 ± 7.7 MPa; LD 17.1 ± 7.9 MPa). Sb protocol showed the lowest mean value (9.6 ± 2.9 MPa) compared with Hf20 (22.0 ± 7.1 MPa), Hf30 (21.7 ± 7.4 MPa), and Se (19.3 ± 6.0 MPa).

CONCLUSION

 For both ceramics, the highest performance was obtained after applying Se and Hf20 or Hf30. Therefore, longer etching time is unnecessary. Sb protocol must be avoided.

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.

Adhesion to lithium disilicate glass-ceramics after aging: Resin viscosity and ceramic surface treatment effects

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of intaglio ceramic surface treatments, resin cement viscosities, and storage regimens on the microshear bond strength of lithium disilicate ceramic. In addition, to investigate the dynamic viscosity of the resin-based luting agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ceramic slices were randomly allocated into eight groups (n = 19) considering three factors: ceramic surface treatment (hydrofluoric acid followed by silane, HF; or self-etching ceramic primer, E&P), resin cement viscosity (high, HIGH; or low, LOW) and storage regimen (baseline or aging). Surface treatments were performed, resin cement cylinders were built and microshear bond strength tests (μSBS, wire-loop method, speed: 1.0 mm/min) were run according to the storage factor. Failure mode, topographic and dynamic viscosity (37 °C; shear rate of 1.0-100 s^-1) of resin cement components (base, high and low catalyst) were also performed.

RESULTS

Resin cement viscosity and the association among ceramic surface treatment, resin cement viscosity, and storage regimen were statistically significant factors (p < 0.05). Worse behavior was identified for the E&P_HIGH group compared to the E&P_LOW and HF_LOW in the baseline condition. After aging, the HF_HIGH group (16.78 MPa) presented the worst result among the aged groups (21.44-25.25 MPa). Most of the failures were adhesive. Surface micrographs revealed a distinct pattern after etching, more aggressive by HF and milder by E&P. High viscosity catalyst is 5.3 and 8.5-fold more viscous than the base and low viscosity catalyst, respectively (high > base > low).

CONCLUSION

Differences in filler content can impact the resin viscosity of the material (more fillers increase the viscosity), which in turn can influence the bond strength of a lithium disilicate ceramic, depending on the surface treatment and storage regimen.