This item still needs to be validated !
Title: Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic
Authors: Peumans, Marleen ×
Hikita, K
De Munck, Jan
Van Landuyt, Kirsten
Poitevin, André
Lambrechts, Paul
Van Meerbeek, Bart #
Issue Date: Apr-2007
Publisher: Elsevier sci ltd
Series Title: Journal of dentistry vol:35 issue:4 pages:282-288
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the micro-tensile bond strength (muTBS) of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. The hypothesis tested was that neither of the surface treatments would produce higher bond strength of the adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. METHODS: Ceramic specimens of two different sizes (6mmx8mmx3 mm; 13mmx8mmx4mm) were fabricated from ProCAD ceramic blocs (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with a low-speed diamond saw. The ceramic blocks were divided into seven groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4); group 3: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4)+silane; group 4: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4)+silane+adhesive resin; group 5: etching with 4.9% HF acid; group 6: etching with 4.9% HF acid+silane; group 7: etching with HF acid+silane+adhesive resin. After surface treatment, two differently sized porcelain disks were bonded together with a composite luting agent (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent). The specimens were stored for 24h in distilled water at 37 degrees C prior to muTBS testing. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the influence of surface treatment and Scheffe multiple comparisons test determined pair-wise statistical differences (p<0.05) in muTBS between the experimental groups. RESULTS: The mean muTBSs (standard deviation) are: group 1: 12.8 (+/-4.6)MPa; group 2: 19.1 (+/-5.0)MPa; group 3: 27.4 (+/-11.1)MPa; group 4: 34.0 (+/-8.9)MPa; group 5: 37.6 (+/-8.4) MPa; group 6: 34.6 (+/-12.8)MPa; group 7: 34.5 (+/-5.1)MPa. Statistical significant differences were found between group 1 and groups 3-7, and between group 2 and groups 4-7. All specimens of groups 1-4 exhibited adhesive failures, while a combination of adhesive and mixed (adhesive and cohesive) failures was observed in the specimens of groups 5-7. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that surface treatment is important to bond to ceramic and suggests that etching is needed preferably with hydrofluoric acid than with phosphoric acid.
ISSN: 0300-5712
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IT
Appears in Collections:Clinical Residents Dentistry
Department of Oral Health Sciences - miscellaneous
Biomaterials - BIOMAT
× corresponding author
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

Request a copy


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

© Web of science