Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Effects of surface treatments and cement types on the bond strength of porcelain-to-porcelain repair.
J Prosthodont. 2014 Dec; 23(8):618-25.JP

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of four surface treatments and two resin cements on the repair bond strength of a ceramic primer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight pairs of disks (10 and 5 mm in diameter, 3 mm thickness) were prepared from heat-pressed feldspar ceramics (GC Initial IQ). After being stored in mucin-artificial saliva for 2 weeks, the 10-mm disks were divided into four surface treatment groups (n = 22) and then treated as follows: (1) no treatment (control); (2) 40% phosphoric acid; (3) 5% hydrofluoric acid + acid neutralizer + 40% phosphoric acid; (4) silica coating (CoJet-sand) + 40% phosphoric acid. The 5-mm disks were treated with 5% hydrofluoric acid + 40% phosphoric acid. The two sizes of porcelain disks, excluding the control group, were primed with Clearfil Ceramic Primer. The specimens in each group were further divided into two subgroups of 11 each, and bonded with Clearfil Esthetic Cement (CEC) or Panavia F 2.0 Cement (PFC). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, thermocycled for 3000 cycles at 5 to 55°C, and stored at 37°C for an additional 7 days. Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured with a universal testing machine at a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until fracture. Statistical analysis of the results was carried out with a two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). Debonded specimen surfaces were examined under an optical microscope to determine the mode of failure.

RESULTS

The statistical analysis showed that the SBS was significantly affected by surface treatment and resin cement (p < 0.05). For treatment groups bonded with CEC, the SBS (MPa) values were (1) 2.64 ± 1.1, (2) 13.31 ± 3.6, (3) 18.88 ± 2.6, (4) 14.27 ± 2.7, while for treatment groups cemented with PFC, the SBS (MPa) values were (1) 3.04 ± 1.1, (2) 16.44 ± 3.3, (3) 20.52 ± 2.2, and (4) 16.24 ± 2.9. All control specimens exhibited adhesive failures, while mixed types of failures were observed in phosphoric acid-treated groups. The other groups revealed mainly cohesive and mixed failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined surface treatment of etching with hydrofluoric acid and phosphoric acid provides the highest bond strengths to porcelain. Also, PFC exhibited higher SBS than CEC did.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

25066092

Citation

Mohamed, Fatma Faiez, et al. "Effects of Surface Treatments and Cement Types On the Bond Strength of Porcelain-to-porcelain Repair." Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, vol. 23, no. 8, 2014, pp. 618-25.
Mohamed FF, Finkelman M, Zandparsa R, et al. Effects of surface treatments and cement types on the bond strength of porcelain-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(8):618-25.
Mohamed, F. F., Finkelman, M., Zandparsa, R., Hirayama, H., & Kugel, G. (2014). Effects of surface treatments and cement types on the bond strength of porcelain-to-porcelain repair. Journal of Prosthodontics : Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 23(8), 618-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12194
Mohamed FF, et al. Effects of Surface Treatments and Cement Types On the Bond Strength of Porcelain-to-porcelain Repair. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(8):618-25. PubMed PMID: 25066092.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of surface treatments and cement types on the bond strength of porcelain-to-porcelain repair. AU - Mohamed,Fatma Faiez, AU - Finkelman,Matthew, AU - Zandparsa,Roya, AU - Hirayama,Hiroshi, AU - Kugel,Gerard, Y1 - 2014/07/27/ PY - 2014/03/07/accepted PY - 2014/7/29/entrez PY - 2014/7/30/pubmed PY - 2016/11/2/medline KW - Shear bond strength KW - ceramic failure KW - composite/porcelain repair KW - silane coupling agent KW - surface treatments SP - 618 EP - 25 JF - Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists JO - J Prosthodont VL - 23 IS - 8 N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of four surface treatments and two resin cements on the repair bond strength of a ceramic primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight pairs of disks (10 and 5 mm in diameter, 3 mm thickness) were prepared from heat-pressed feldspar ceramics (GC Initial IQ). After being stored in mucin-artificial saliva for 2 weeks, the 10-mm disks were divided into four surface treatment groups (n = 22) and then treated as follows: (1) no treatment (control); (2) 40% phosphoric acid; (3) 5% hydrofluoric acid + acid neutralizer + 40% phosphoric acid; (4) silica coating (CoJet-sand) + 40% phosphoric acid. The 5-mm disks were treated with 5% hydrofluoric acid + 40% phosphoric acid. The two sizes of porcelain disks, excluding the control group, were primed with Clearfil Ceramic Primer. The specimens in each group were further divided into two subgroups of 11 each, and bonded with Clearfil Esthetic Cement (CEC) or Panavia F 2.0 Cement (PFC). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, thermocycled for 3000 cycles at 5 to 55°C, and stored at 37°C for an additional 7 days. Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured with a universal testing machine at a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until fracture. Statistical analysis of the results was carried out with a two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). Debonded specimen surfaces were examined under an optical microscope to determine the mode of failure. RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that the SBS was significantly affected by surface treatment and resin cement (p < 0.05). For treatment groups bonded with CEC, the SBS (MPa) values were (1) 2.64 ± 1.1, (2) 13.31 ± 3.6, (3) 18.88 ± 2.6, (4) 14.27 ± 2.7, while for treatment groups cemented with PFC, the SBS (MPa) values were (1) 3.04 ± 1.1, (2) 16.44 ± 3.3, (3) 20.52 ± 2.2, and (4) 16.24 ± 2.9. All control specimens exhibited adhesive failures, while mixed types of failures were observed in phosphoric acid-treated groups. The other groups revealed mainly cohesive and mixed failures. CONCLUSIONS: Combined surface treatment of etching with hydrofluoric acid and phosphoric acid provides the highest bond strengths to porcelain. Also, PFC exhibited higher SBS than CEC did. SN - 1532-849X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/25066092/Effects_of_surface_treatments_and_cement_types_on_the_bond_strength_of_porcelain_to_porcelain_repair_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12194 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -