Resistência de união entre cimentos resinosos autoadesivos e cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina

• Autor(a) principal: Andreiuolo, Rafael Ferrone
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/14009
• topic: Zirconia; Bond strength; Microtensile test; Resin cements; Microscopy atomic force; Zircônia; Resistência de união; Microtração; Cimentos resinosos; Microscopia de força atômica; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polycrystalline zirconia. Eighteen 3Y-TZP ceramic blocks (9 LAVA and 9 LAVA Plus) were sandblasted with 50 µm Al2O3 powder for 20 s with a pressure of 28 psi at a working distance of 10 mm. The ceramic blocks were duplicated in composite resin (Point 4, Kerr) using a silicon mold. Composite blocks were bonded to sandblasted zirconia using different self-adhesive resin cements: (1) RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE); (2) SmartCem 2 (Dentsply); (3) Speedcem (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 24 h immersed in distilled water at 37oC the bonded specimens were cut into microtensile bond sticks of 1 mm2 ± 0,2 mminterface areaand loaded in tension until failure. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and LSDtest for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). The fractured surfaces were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the failure mode was recorded. Surface topography of the sandblasted and the as sintered zirconia materials were analyzed under an atomic force microscope (AFM).Bond strength of Speedcem cement to zirconia was significantly higher than that of RelyX Unicem 2 and SmartCem 2, irrespective of the ceramic used (p<0,05). Bond strength was not significantly influenced by the ceramic factor. Interactions were significant (p<0,05). The mode of failure of SmartCem 2 was almost exclusively adhesive, while RelyX Unicem 2 and Speedcem exhibited a good percentage of mixed fractures. No cohesive fractures were observed. AFM did not reveal differences in the topography pattern of the two ceramics before or after sandblasting. It was concluded that Speedcem presented superior adhesion to polycrystalline zirconia ceramics.