Adhesion to zirconia as a function of primers/silane coupling agents, luting cement types, aging and test methods
Source abstract
Abstract
This study evaluated the adhesion of resin cements to zirconia with different primers/silane coupling agents using two test methods with and without aging. Zirconia discs (Cercon) (N = 900, n = 15 per group) were ground finished to 2000 grit silicone carbide and randomly divided into seven groups: (a) C: No treatment (Control), (b) SG: Signum, (c) CL: Clearfil Ceramic Primer, (d) AP: Alloy Primer, (e) Monobond Plus, (f) ES-R: ESPE-Sil after Rocatec and (g) ES-C: ESPE-Sil after CoJet. Methacrylate (Variolink II-VL) and MDP based (Panavia F2.0-PN) dual-polymerized and self-adhesive resin cements (RelyX Unicem-RX) were adhered and polymerized accordingly. The specimens were further randomly divided into two groups to be tested after (a) 24-h dry storage at 37 °C and (b) thermocycling (×5000, 5–55 °C). Macroshear (MSB) and macrotensile bond tests (MTB) were conducted in an universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) and failure types were analyzed after debonding. Data were analyzed using Univariate analysis and Tukey’s tests (α = 0.05). Two-parameter Weibull modulus, scale (m) and shape (0) were calculated. While primer/silane (p < 0.001), cement type (p < 0.001) and aging (p < 0.001) significantly affected the bond results, test method did not show significant difference (p = 0.237). In MSB test, Weilbul moduli were more favorable for MP-VL (4.2) and AP-PN (6) combinations and after aging for MP-VL (4.2) and AP-PN (5.66). In MTB test, after aging, Weilbul moduli were more favorable for AP-PN (5.41). Bond strength results mostly decreased with SG (24–92%) after aging. Cohesive failures in the cement were more frequent with PN (252) compared to VL (83).
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.00210.1016/j.dental.2003.05.002 ↗
2. 10.11607/ijp.364710.11607/ijp.3647 ↗
3. 10.1111/clr.2007.18.issue-s310.1111/clr.2007.18.issue-s3 ↗
4. Spohr AM · Int J Prosthodont · 2003 · 16 · 277
5. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.01610.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.016 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60088-810.1016/S0022-3913(08)60088-8 ↗
7. 10.4012/dmj.27.9910.4012/dmj.27.99 ↗
8. 10.1177/002203450934088110.1177/0022034509340881 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.dental.2009.08.00810.1016/j.dental.2009.08.008 ↗
10. Özcan M · J Adhes Dent · 2015 · 17 · 7
11. 10.1163/156856109X43272110.1163/156856109X432721 ↗
12. 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-463610.1002/(ISSN)1097-4636 ↗
13. Zhang Y · Int J Prosthodont · 2006 · 19 · 442
14. Larson TD · Northwest Dent · 2006 · 85 · 27
15. 10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.03510.1016/j.dental.2005.11.035 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.00510.1016/j.dental.2009.12.005 ↗
17. 10.1111/jor.2011.38.issue-410.1111/jor.2011.38.issue-4 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.04.01810.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.04.018 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.00510.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.005 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.01.00810.1016/j.jdent.2006.01.008 ↗
21. 10.1002/pol.1980.18018020610.1002/pol.1980.180180206 ↗
22. Barghi N · Compend Cont Educ Dent · 2000 · 21 · 659
23. 10.1177/0022034595074009140110.1177/00220345950740091401 ↗
24. Betamar N · J Adhes Dent · 2007 · 9 · 159
25. 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.00910.1016/j.dental.2011.10.009 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.04.01210.1016/j.actbio.2008.04.012 ↗
27. 10.1002/jbm.b.3168410.1002/jbm.b.31684 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.00210.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.002 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.00510.1016/j.dental.2007.05.005 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00094-510.1016/S0109-5641(02)00094-5 ↗
31. Özcan M · J Adhes Dent · 2013 · 15 · 211
32. 10.1039/9781847552211-0003510.1039/9781847552211-00035 ↗