Surface Treatments and Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Glass-Ceramic
Objectives: To investigate the effect of surface treatment protocols on the shear bond strength of lithium disilicate (LD) glass-ceramic restorations (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) to two resin cements. Methods: Two-hundred ten blocks (4X4X3mm) of LD glass-ceramic were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin cylinders keeping the ceramic surface exposed for bonding. Ceramic specimens were randomly allocated into fourteen groups (n=15), of which six received Variolink Esthetic DC cement (VE) and eight received RelyX Ultimate cement (RU), following the surface treatments: G1)Positive control- Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane (HF+Sil); G2)Negative control- saliva (S); G3)Saliva + Ivoclean (S+IC); G4) Saliva + Phosphoric Acid (S+P); G5)Saliva + Monobond Etch & Prime (S+EP); G6)Monobond Etch & Prime (EP). For RU, two additional treatments were used: G7)Saliva + Monobond Etch & Prime + Scotchbond™ Universal (S+EP+SB); G8)Monobond Etch & Prime + Scotchbond™ Universal (EP+SB). Following treatment, a cylinder of resin cement (2.3mm diameter) was built on the glass-ceramic surface, photocured (20s), stored in distilled water (37°C, 24h) and submitted to the shear bond strength test. Bond strength data (MPa) were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey (a=0.01). Results: Cement and surface treatment had a significant effect on the bond strength between glass-ceramic and resin cement (P<0.001) (Table 1). For both cements, EP presented significantly higher shear bond values as compared to the gold standard, HF+Sil. Moreover, EP presented the highest bond strength when compared to other cleaning agents, IC and P, following saliva contamination. The use of SB adhesive did not impact the effectiveness of EP for RU, hence simplifying the number of procedural steps. Conclusions: Single-step EP significantly improved the bond strength of resin cements to LD glass-ceramic with and without saliva contamination. EP effectively replaced HF+Sil with the benefits of presenting higher bond strength, and a safer and simpler procedure to be employed in clinics.
Division:IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting:2020 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (Washington, D.C., USA) Location:Washington, D.C., USA
Year: 2020 Final Presentation ID:0142 Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s):Prosthodontics Research
Authors
Maqbool, Bilal
( University of Western Ontario
, London
, Ontario
, Canada
)
Rego, Heleine
( University of Western Ontario
, London
, Ontario
, Canada
)
Santos, Gildo
( University of Western Ontario
, London
, Ontario
, Canada
)
Ari, Nilgun
( University of Western Ontario
, London
, Ontario
, Canada
)
Santos, Maria Jacinta
( University of Western Ontario
, London
, Ontario
, Canada
)
Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
SESSION INFORMATION
Oral Session
Fixed Prosthodontics: Materials
TABLES
Shear Bond Strength Measured in MPa, and Standard Deviations of the Groups Tested
Surface Treatments
G1 Positive Control: HF + Silane
G2 Negative Control: Saliva
G3 Saliva + Ivoclean
G4 Saliva + Phosphoric Acid
G5 Saliva + Monobond Etch & Prime
G6 Monobond Etch & Prime
G7 Saliva + Monobond Etch & Prime + Scotchbond™ Universal
G8 Monobond Etch & Prime + Scotchbond™ Universal
Cement Type
Variolink Esthetic DC
20.39 (5.9) ACa
14.51 (3.9) Aa
21.25 (5.7) ACa
25.10 (6.8) CDa
30.18 (6.1) BDa
28.72 (5.8) BDa
N/A
N/A
RelyX™ Ultimate
14.30 (4.6) Ab
15.04 (4.5) Aa
14.34 (3.8) Ab
13.62 (3.6) Ab
25.27 (6.4) Ba
24.55 (4.7) Ba
27.25 (7.8) B
27.45 (6.8) B
Different uppercase letters show statistical difference (p<0.01) between surface treatment groups, within the same cement; different lowercase letters show statistical difference (p<0.01) among cements, keeping the same surface treatment.