Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments
Abstract Background This study aimed to investigate different surface treatments thought to increase the bond strength between zirconia ceramic and adhesive resin cement. Methods The samples were prepared in 15 × 10 × 2 mm dimensions by cutting off monolithic zirconia ceramic blocks (Incoris TZI; Si...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03630-7 |
| _version_ | 1797556005579522048 |
|---|---|
| author | Işıl Sarıkaya Yeliz Hayran |
| author_facet | Işıl Sarıkaya Yeliz Hayran |
| author_sort | Işıl Sarıkaya |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background This study aimed to investigate different surface treatments thought to increase the bond strength between zirconia ceramic and adhesive resin cement. Methods The samples were prepared in 15 × 10 × 2 mm dimensions by cutting off monolithic zirconia ceramic blocks (Incoris TZI; Sirona, Germany). Surface roughness measurements were made with a profilometer, the average surface roughness (Ra1) was recorded, and five different surface treatments were applied. Group 1: Control group. No surface treatment was applied. Group 2: Sandblasted with Al2O3 under pressure of 50 μm. Group 3: Sandblasted with 30 μm Al2O3 - SiOx under pressure, then tribochemical silica coating, silane bonding agent, and ceramic primer were applied. Group 4: Samples were etched in a hot acid solution containing methanol, HCl, and chloride at 100 °C. Group 5: Samples were coated in a solution containing Grade C Aluminum Nitrite at 75 °C for 15 Sects. 12,000 thermal aging was carried out to all samples. Then, samples were bonded to a composite surface (Filtek Z250) with two different types of adhesive cement (Panavia F 2.0, Rely X U200) (n = 10). A load was applied to the samples attached to the Universal Test Device for the SBS, and the SBS was recorded. The surface roughness measurements of all samples were made again, and the average surface roughness Ra2 was recorded. The data was analyzed with a two-way ANOVA test. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons of the groups. p = 0.005 was accepted as the statistically significant value. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the Ra1 measurements (p = 0.031). There was a statistically significant difference between the Ra2 values of Groups 4 and 5 and the Ra2 values of Groups 1,2 and 3 in the Ra2 measurements (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the SBS values of the groups (p > 0.005). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the SBS values of all groups for the two different cements tested (p > 0.005). Conclusions None of the surface treatments applied to monolithic zirconia ceramic samples increased the SBS between ceramic and adhesive resin cement. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T16:55:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-15ab12d344064849a277861062971b70 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T16:55:36Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-15ab12d344064849a277861062971b702023-11-20T11:07:56ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312023-11-0123111010.1186/s12903-023-03630-7Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatmentsIşıl Sarıkaya0Yeliz Hayran1Department of Prosthodontics, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University Faculty of DentistryDepartment of Prosthodontics, Bursa Uludağ University Faculty of DentistryAbstract Background This study aimed to investigate different surface treatments thought to increase the bond strength between zirconia ceramic and adhesive resin cement. Methods The samples were prepared in 15 × 10 × 2 mm dimensions by cutting off monolithic zirconia ceramic blocks (Incoris TZI; Sirona, Germany). Surface roughness measurements were made with a profilometer, the average surface roughness (Ra1) was recorded, and five different surface treatments were applied. Group 1: Control group. No surface treatment was applied. Group 2: Sandblasted with Al2O3 under pressure of 50 μm. Group 3: Sandblasted with 30 μm Al2O3 - SiOx under pressure, then tribochemical silica coating, silane bonding agent, and ceramic primer were applied. Group 4: Samples were etched in a hot acid solution containing methanol, HCl, and chloride at 100 °C. Group 5: Samples were coated in a solution containing Grade C Aluminum Nitrite at 75 °C for 15 Sects. 12,000 thermal aging was carried out to all samples. Then, samples were bonded to a composite surface (Filtek Z250) with two different types of adhesive cement (Panavia F 2.0, Rely X U200) (n = 10). A load was applied to the samples attached to the Universal Test Device for the SBS, and the SBS was recorded. The surface roughness measurements of all samples were made again, and the average surface roughness Ra2 was recorded. The data was analyzed with a two-way ANOVA test. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons of the groups. p = 0.005 was accepted as the statistically significant value. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the Ra1 measurements (p = 0.031). There was a statistically significant difference between the Ra2 values of Groups 4 and 5 and the Ra2 values of Groups 1,2 and 3 in the Ra2 measurements (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the SBS values of the groups (p > 0.005). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the SBS values of all groups for the two different cements tested (p > 0.005). Conclusions None of the surface treatments applied to monolithic zirconia ceramic samples increased the SBS between ceramic and adhesive resin cement.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03630-7Monolithic zirconiaIncoris TZIAdhesive resin cementShear bond strengthThermal agingSurface roughness |
| spellingShingle | Işıl Sarıkaya Yeliz Hayran Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments BMC Oral Health Monolithic zirconia Incoris TZI Adhesive resin cement Shear bond strength Thermal aging Surface roughness |
| title | Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments |
| title_full | Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments |
| title_fullStr | Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments |
| title_full_unstemmed | Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments |
| title_short | Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments |
| title_sort | adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments |
| topic | Monolithic zirconia Incoris TZI Adhesive resin cement Shear bond strength Thermal aging Surface roughness |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03630-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT isılsarıkaya adhesivebondstrengthofmonolithiczirconiaceramicfinishedwithvarioussurfacetreatments AT yelizhayran adhesivebondstrengthofmonolithiczirconiaceramicfinishedwithvarioussurfacetreatments |