Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic

• Autor(a) principal: de Melo, Renata Marques [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• Outros Autores: Valandro, Luiz Felipe [UNESP], Bottino, Marco Antonio [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402007000400008; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/70070
• topic: Bond strength; Ceramic; Repair composite; Surface treatment; aluminum oxide; aluminum silicate; biomaterial; biomedical and dental materials; bisphenol A bis(2 hydroxypropyl) ether dimethacrylate; Filtek Z250; hydrofluoric acid; leucite; Omega Dental Ceramic; potassium derivative; resin; resin cement; silane derivative; silicon dioxide; single bond; unclassified drug; chemistry; clinical trial; comparative study; controlled clinical trial; controlled study; dental acid etching; dental bonding; dental etching; feldspar; human; materials testing; mechanical stress; methodology; randomized controlled trial; tensile strength; tooth prosthesis; Acid Etching, Dental; Aluminum Oxide; Aluminum Silicates; Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Etching; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Repair; Humans; Hydrofluoric Acid; Materials Testing; Potassium Compounds; Resin Cements; Silanes; Silicon Dioxide; Stress, Mechanical; Tensile Strength

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a repair composite resin to a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Omega 900, VITA) submitted to two surface conditionings methods: 1) etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane application or 2) tribochemical silica coating. The null hypothesis is that both surface treatments can generate similar bond strengths. Ten ceramic blocks (6x6x6 mm) were fabricated and randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=5), according to the conditioning method: G1- 10% hydrofluoric acid application for 2 min plus rinsing and drying, followed by silane application for 30 s; G2- airborne particle abrasion with 30 μm silica oxide particles (CoJet-Sand) for 20 s using a chairside air-abrasion device (CoJet System), followed by silane application for 5 min. Single Bond adhesive system was applied to the surfaces and light cured (40 s). Z-250 composite resin was placed incrementally on the treated ceramic surface to build a 6x6x6 mm block. Bar specimens with an adhesive area of approximately 1 ± 0.1 mm2 were obtained from the composite-ceramic blocks (6 per block and 30 per group) for microtensile testing. No statistically significant difference was observed between G1 (10.19 ± 3.1 MPa) and G2 (10.17 ± 3.1 MPa) (p=0.982) (Student's t test; á = 0.05). The null hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. In conclusion, both surface conditioning methods provided similar microtensile bond strengths between the repair composite resin and the ceramic. Further studies using long-term aging procedures should be conducted.