IADR Abstract Archives
Does a Self-etching Ceramic Primer Increase μSBS to Lithium-disilicate Ceramic?
Objectives: Compare the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) vs. self-etching ceramic primer (MEP) on microshear bond strengths (μSBS) to lithium disilicate (LD).
Methods: LD (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) blocks (14x4x2mm3) were polished up to 1200-grit, and assigned to 7 HF and 1 MEP groups (n=15): IVO=5.0%HF (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel, Ivoclar Vivadent); VIT=5.0%HF (Vita Ceramics Etch, VITA Zahnfabrik); FGM=5.0%HF (Condac Porcelana, FGM); ULT=9.0%HF (Porcelain Etch, Ultradent); PRM=9.6%HF (Premier Porcelain Etch Gel, Premier); BIS=9.5%HF (Porcelain Etchant, Bisco); and DEN=10.0%HF (Porcelain Conditioner, Dentsply). HF was applied for 20s, cleaned ultrasonically/180s in DH2O, air-dried for 60s, followed by a silane/MDP solution (MB+, Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent). MEP (Monobond Etch&Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied with a microbrush, rinsed, and dried following manufacturer’s instructions. Fifteen transparent matrices (1.0mm-high, 0.8mm-wide, Tygon Medical) adapted to adhesive tape perforations were filled with light-cured resin cement (Variolink Veneer, Ivoclar Vivadent), and light-cured (40s, 24J/cm2). Specimens were stored in water (48h/37°C). A thin wire (Ø=0.2mm) was looped around each resin cylinder and μSBS measured (Instron 4444, crosshead speed=1mm/min). Mode of failure was analyzed with optical microscopy (X40): A) Adhesive; M) Mixed; CR) Cohesive in resin cement; CC) Cohesive in ceramics. Statistical analysis (SPSS 22, IBM SPSS) included 1-way ANOVA and Duncan’s post-hoc test (p<0.05).
Results: Means±SD (MPa) and failure mode are displayed in Table. Means with different letters indicate a significant difference between pairs or means (p=0.0001). Two pre-testing failures occurred with MEP.
Conclusions: HF etching followed by silane may be more reliable for LD glass-ceramic bonding than a self-etching ceramic primer.
Methods: LD (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) blocks (14x4x2mm3) were polished up to 1200-grit, and assigned to 7 HF and 1 MEP groups (n=15): IVO=5.0%HF (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel, Ivoclar Vivadent); VIT=5.0%HF (Vita Ceramics Etch, VITA Zahnfabrik); FGM=5.0%HF (Condac Porcelana, FGM); ULT=9.0%HF (Porcelain Etch, Ultradent); PRM=9.6%HF (Premier Porcelain Etch Gel, Premier); BIS=9.5%HF (Porcelain Etchant, Bisco); and DEN=10.0%HF (Porcelain Conditioner, Dentsply). HF was applied for 20s, cleaned ultrasonically/180s in DH2O, air-dried for 60s, followed by a silane/MDP solution (MB+, Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent). MEP (Monobond Etch&Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied with a microbrush, rinsed, and dried following manufacturer’s instructions. Fifteen transparent matrices (1.0mm-high, 0.8mm-wide, Tygon Medical) adapted to adhesive tape perforations were filled with light-cured resin cement (Variolink Veneer, Ivoclar Vivadent), and light-cured (40s, 24J/cm2). Specimens were stored in water (48h/37°C). A thin wire (Ø=0.2mm) was looped around each resin cylinder and μSBS measured (Instron 4444, crosshead speed=1mm/min). Mode of failure was analyzed with optical microscopy (X40): A) Adhesive; M) Mixed; CR) Cohesive in resin cement; CC) Cohesive in ceramics. Statistical analysis (SPSS 22, IBM SPSS) included 1-way ANOVA and Duncan’s post-hoc test (p<0.05).
Results: Means±SD (MPa) and failure mode are displayed in Table. Means with different letters indicate a significant difference between pairs or means (p=0.0001). Two pre-testing failures occurred with MEP.
Conclusions: HF etching followed by silane may be more reliable for LD glass-ceramic bonding than a self-etching ceramic primer.
IMAGES
2639763_File000000.jpg
2639763_File000000.jpg