Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-ceramic Material

Bond strength of zirconia- or polymer-based copings cemented on implant-supported titanium bases - an in vitro study

Purpose

To evaluate the bond strength between polymer-based copings and zirconia copings as positive control, cemented on implant-supported titanium bases with different adhesive cement systems. Moreover, to evaluate if airborne-particle abrasion of polymethylmetacrylate (PMMA) would enhance the bond strength.

Methods

Four groups of different materials were used to fabricate the copings, 30 in each group: airborne-particle abraded milled zirconia (TAZirconia, control group), milled PMMA (TPMMA), airborne-particle abraded milled PMMA (TAPMMA) and 3 D-printed micro filled hybrid resin (TAMFH). Each group of copings was cemented on titanium bases by three different adhesive cement systems, 10 each: Multilink Hybrid Abutment, Panavia V5, RelyX Ultimate. The specimens were stored dry at room temperature for 24 h, subjected to thermocycling for 5000 cycles followed by evaluating the bond strength by tensile strength test.

Results

TPMMA and TAPMMA cemented with Multilink Hybrid Abutment showed statistically significant lower bond strength in comparison to TAZirconia and TAMFH. No difference was observed between the latter two. TPMMA, TAPMMA and TAMFH had a statistically significant lower bond strength compared to the control group when cemented with Panavia V5. TPMMA and TAPMMA cemented with Rely X Ultimate showed statistically significant lower bond strength in comparison to the control group.

Conclusion

Almost all experimental groups, except 3 D-printed MFH, performed inferior than the positive control group where the highest bond strength was reported for the cementation of zirconia copings cemented with Panavia V5 or Rely X Ultimate. Airborne-particle abrasion did not improve the bond strength of the PMMA, except when Multilink Hybrid Abutment was used.

Effect of Luting Cements On the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-Ceramic Material

BACKGROUND:

The selection of the appropriate luting cement is a key factor for achieving a strong bond between prepared teeth and dental restorations.

AIM:

To evaluate the shear bond strength of Zinc phosphate cement Elite, glass ionomer cement Fuji I, resin-modified glass ionomer cement Fuji Plus and resin luting cement Panavia-F to Turkom-Cera all-ceramic material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Turkom-Cera was used to form discs 10mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness (n = 40). The ceramic discs were wet ground, air - particle abraded with 50 - μm aluminium oxide particles and randomly divided into four groups (n = 10). The luting cement was bonded to Turkom-Cera discs as per manufacturer instructions. The shear bond strengths were determined using the universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analysed using the tests One Way ANOVA, the nonparametric Kruskal - Wallis test and Mann - Whitney Post hoc test.

RESULTS:

The shear bond strength of the Elite, Fuji I, Fuji Plus and Panavia F groups were: 0.92 ± 0.42, 2.04 ± 0.78, 4.37 ± 1.18, and 16.42 ± 3.38 MPa, respectively. There was the statistically significant difference between the four luting cement tested (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

the phosphate-containing resin cement Panavia-F exhibited shear bond strength value significantly higher than all materials tested.

Comparison of complications in the conventional telescopic Herbst rod and tube and Manni telescopic Herbst: A retrospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the prevalence of clinical complications between two different telescopic Herbst systems: the conventional telescopic system, with traditional rod and tube (RMS), and the Manni telescopic Herbst appliance (MTH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety subjects treated with RMS were compared to 89 patients treated with MTH. All of the complications that occurred were reported, and percentages of prevalence were calculated.

RESULTS

MTH showed a significantly lower percentage of reversible complications (that did not require appliance removal) when compared to the reversible complications during RMS treatment (20.2% vs 51.1%). No statistically significant differences were found between RMS and MTH regarding irreversible complications (that required appliance removal and full re-make). All of the irreversible complications occurred after reversible complications in the RMS group, while most of the irreversible complications in the MTH group occurred without any previous reversible complication.

CONCLUSIONS

MTH exhibited a smaller number of clinical complications during Class II skeletal malocclusion therapy.