Search

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the type of preheated resin composite on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between dentin and feldspathic ceramic inlays. Thirty healthy human premolars received inlay preparations for feldspathic ceramic restorations and were then divided into three treatment groups according to the luting agent (n = 10): Conventional Resin Cement (RC), Preheated Nanofilled Methacrylate-Based Resin composite (MB), and Preheated Microhybrid Silorane-Based Resin composite (SB). The composite resin was preheated to 55 °C, considering the cementation group. After cementation, the sets were cut into slabs with a bonding area of 1 mm2 to be further submitted to the µTBS test (0.5 mm/min, and10 Kgf load cell). One-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p <.5) were performed to analyze the bond strength data (MPa). Failures were observed under a stereomicroscope and representative specimens were evaluated using a Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). ANOVA revealed that the type of luting agent utilized was significant (p =.001). Bond strength values for the RC (7.37 ± 1.27 MPa)A and MB (6.98 ± 1.96 MPa)A treatment groups were similar and greater than the SB (4.74 ± 1.65 MPa)B. Adhesive failures between the cementing agent and ceramic were prevalent for the treatment groups. The preheated nanofilled methacrylate resin-based composite technique can promote bond strength similar to resin cement, whereas preheated silorane-based resin composite as a luting agent should be seen with caution. Thus, we concluded that the type of luting agent has influenced the µTBS of feldspathic restoration to dentin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength between composite resin and feldspathic ceramic following repair protocols with and without hydrofluoric acid and aging by thermocycling. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight glass feldspathic ceramic blocks (8 x 8 x 6 mm) were divided into three groups on the basis of their surface repair treatment: 1. 10% hydrofluoric acid + Signum Ceramic Primer I + Signum Ceramic Primer II (control group); 2. abrasive rubber tips + Signum Ceramic Primer I + Signum Ceramic Primer II (test group); 3. Signum Ceramic Primer I + Signum Ceramic Primer II (negative control group). The treated surface of each block was built up with composite and then sectioned to produce nontrimmed bars (adhesive area = 1 mm²). Half of the bars from each group were aged by 6000 cycles of 30-s immersions in water baths at 5°C and 55°C, with a transfer time of 2 s. The other bars were immediately subjected to microtensile bond strength testing. The mean bond strength for each block was then recorded and submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: The aging protocol influenced the bond strength values of all groups (p = 0.000). The non-aged groups submitted to surface treatment protocols 1 (13.1 ± 2.5 MPa) and 2 (11.5 ± 5.1 MPa) presented the highest bond strength values. Conclusions: The interface bond strength of all groups was susceptible to aging. Surface treatment protocol 2, with abrasive rubber tips and no hydrofluoric acid, appeared to be the most promising option, as the resulting bond strength values were similar to those of the control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]