Effect of Different Ceramic Surface Treatments on Resin Microtensile Bond Strength

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 28 - 35
• Main Authors: Filho, Alfredo Meyer, Vieira, Luiz Clovis Cardoso, Araújo, Élito, Monteiro Júnior, Sylvio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK Blackwell Science Ltd 01.03.2004
• Subjects: Acid Etching, Dental; adhesion; Adhesiveness; Air Abrasion, Dental; Aluminum Oxide - chemistry; Aluminum Silicates - chemistry; Analysis of Variance; Ceramics - chemistry; composite; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Polishing; Dental Porcelain - chemistry; Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation; Dentistry; hot-pressed ceramic; Humans; Hydrofluoric Acid - chemistry; Materials Testing; Resin Cements - chemistry; Silanes - chemistry; Surface Properties; surface treatment; Tensile Strength
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04007.x

Purpose:The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength (μ‐tbs) of composite bonded to hot‐pressed ceramic. The null hypothesis tested was that neither of the surface treatments (silanization or fluoric acid etching) would produce greater bond strength of composite resin to the ceramic. Materials and Methods:Four 7 × 7 × 5 mm hot‐pressed ceramic blocks of IPS Empress 2 were fabricated and polished to 600 grit followed by sandblasting with 50 μm alumina. The ceramic blocks were then divided into four groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: Group 1: 9.5% hydrofluoric (HF) acid for 20 seconds and silane (S) for 3 minutes; Group 2: silane for 3 minutes; Group 3: 9.5% HF acid for 20 seconds; Group 4: no treatment. Scotchbond adhesive was applied to the treated ceramic surfaces and covered with Filtek Z250 composite resin. The composite‐ceramic blocks were cut with an Isomet low speed diamond saw machine producing sticks (n = 25), which were loaded to failure under tension in an Instron Universal testing machine. The mean μ‐tbs was analyzed with one‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni “t” test. Results:All specimens of Group 4 experienced adhesive failure during the cutting of the block and were eliminated. The mean μ‐tbs and standard deviations (SD) in megaPascals were: Group 1 = 56.8 (±10.4), Group 2 = 44.8 (±11.6), Group 3 = 35.1 (±7.7). Statistical analysis showed that the bond strength was significantly affected by surface treatment (p < 0.0001). Group 1 (HF + S) had the highest μ‐tbs, and Group 2 (S) had higher μ‐tbs than Group 3 (HF). The mode of fracture of the specimens was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and all fractures occurred within the adhesion zone. Conclusion:The results show that surface treatment is important for resin adhesion to ceramic and suggest that silane treatment was the main factor responsible for resin bonding to ceramic.