Early bond strength of two resin cements to Y-TZP ceramic using MPS or MPS/4-META silanes

For cementation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconium polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramic frameworks, protocols of surface-conditioning methods and available cements vary, resulting in confusion among clinicians regarding selection and effects of different conditioning methods on cement adhesion. This study evaluated the effect of two silanes (3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate (MPS) and 3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate/4-methacryloyloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride methyl methacrylate (MPS/4-META) on the adhesion of two resin-based cements (SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0) to Y-TZP ceramic and compared several protocols with those indicated by the manufacturer of each of these cements. Disks of Y-TZP ceramic (LAVA, 3M ESPE) (n = 60) were divided into six experimental groups (n = 10 per group) and treated as follows: (1) silica coating (SC) + MPS silane + SuperBond; (2) SC + MPS/4-META + silane + SuperBond); (3) SC + MPS silane + Panavia F 2.0); (4) SC + MPS/4-META silane + Panavia F 2.0); (5) no conditioning + MPS/4-META silane + Super-Bond (SuperBond instructions); and (6) 50-μm Al(2)O(3) conditioning + Panavia F 2.0 (Panavia F 2.0 instructions). The specimens were subjected to shear-bond testing after water storage at 37 °C for 3 months in the dark. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD (α = 0.05). After silica coating, the mean bond strength of SuperBond cement was not significantly different between MPS and MPS/4-META silanes (20.2 ± 3.7 and 20.9 ± 1.6 MPa, respectively), but the mean bond strength of Panavia F 2.0 was significantly higher with MPS silane (24.4 ± 5.3 MPa) than with MPS/4-META (12.3 ± 1.4 MPa) (P < 0.001). The SuperBond manufacturer's instructions alone resulted in significantly higher bond strength (9.7 ± 3.1 MPa) than the Panavia F 2.0 manufacturer's instruction (0 MPa) (P < 0.001). When silica coating and silanization were used, both SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 cements demonstrated higher bond strengths they did when the manufacturers' instructions were followed. With SuperBond, use of MPS or MPS/4-META silane resulted in no significant difference when the ceramic surface was silica coated, but with Panavia F 2.0, use of MPS silane resulted in a significantly higher bond strength than use of MPS/4-META. Use of chairside silica coating and silanization to condition the zirconia surface improved adhesion compared with the manufacturers' cementation protocols for SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 resin cements

Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of a zirconia-reinforced ceramic to composite resin Efeito de tratamentos de superfície sobre a resistência de união entre cerâmica reforçada por zircônia e resina composta

The objective of this study was to evaluate the tensile (sigmat) and shear bond strength (sigmas) of a glass-infiltrated alumina-based zirconia-reinforced ceramic (IZ - Vita In-Ceram Zirconia) to a composite resin, testing the hypothesis that silica coating (SC - Cojet, 3M-Espe) produces higher bond strength values than other ceramic surface treatments. Specimens were fabricated and tested according to the manufacturers' instructions, and to ISO6872 and ISO11405 specifications. Sixty IZ disk specimens were polished through 1 µm and divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the following surface treatments: HF - 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (Ultradent) for 1 min; SB - sandblasting with 25-µm aluminum oxide particles for 10 s; SC - silica coating for 10 s. Silane (3M-Espe), adhesive (Single Bond, 3M-Espe) and a composite resin cylinder (Z100, 3M-Espe) were applied and polymerized to the treated bonding area (3.5 mm in diameter). Ten specimens from each group (n = 10) were tested for sigmat and ten specimens were tested for sigmas, using a universal testing machine (EMIC DL 2000) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey tests (alpha = 0.05). The mean and standard deviation values (MPa) and statistical groupings for sigmat were: HF - 3.5 &plusmn; 1.0a; SB - 7.6 &plusmn; 1.2b; and SC - 10.4 &plusmn; 1.8c. For sigmas, the values were: HF - 10.4 &plusmn; 3.1A; SB - 13.9 &plusmn; 3.1B; and SC - 21.6 &plusmn; 1.7C (p < 0.05). The groups presented the same statistical ranking of mean values for both test methods. The SC-treated IZ ceramic presented a significant increase in mean bond strength values for both test methods, confirming the study hypothesis.<br>O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a resistência adesiva à tração (sigmat) e ao cisalhamento (sigmas) de uma cerâmica à base de alumina infiltrada por vidro e reforçada com zircônia (IZ- Vita In-Ceram Zircônia) à resina composta, testando a hipótese de que o sistema de silicatização (SC- Cojet, 3M-ESPE) produz valores maiores de resistência adesiva do que demais tratamentos de superfície utilizados. Sessenta corpos-de-prova (cp) em forma de disco da IZ foram fabricados e testados de acordo com as instruções dos fabricantes e as normas ISO6872 e ISO11405. Após polimento até 1 µm, os cp foram divididos em 3 grupos (n = 20) de acordo com o tratamento de superfície aplicado: HF - ácido hidrofluorídrico a 9,5% (Ultradent) por 1 min; SB - jateamento com óxido de alumínio 25 µm por 10 s; SC - silicatização por 10 s. Silano (3M-Espe), adesivo (Single Bond, 3M-Espe) e um cilindro resinoso (Z100, 3M-Espe) foram aplicados na área de adesão (3,5 mm de diâmetro) e fotoativados. Dez cp por grupo (n = 10) foram testados para sigmat e os outros 10 cp para sigmas em uma máquina de ensaios universal (EMIC DL 2000) com velocidade de 1 mm/min. Os resultados foram analisados estatisticamente por ANOVA e Tukey (alfa = 0,05). Os valores médios e desvio padrão (MPa) para sigmat foram: HF - 3,5 &plusmn; 1,0a; SB - 7,6 &plusmn; 1,2b; SC - 10,4 &plusmn; 1,8c. Para sigmas, os resultados foram: HF - 10,4 &plusmn; 3,1A; SB - 13,9 &plusmn; 3,1B; SC - 21,6 &plusmn; 1,7C (p < 0,05). Os grupos mostraram o mesmo ranqueamento estatístico de valores em ambos os testes. A IZ tratada com SC demonstrou aumento significativo na média de resistência adesiva em ambos os testes, confirmando a hipótese inicial