Comparison of methanol/hydrochloric, ferric chloride acid versus tribochemical silica coating for adhesion of resin cement to zirconium dioxide

• Autor(a) principal: de Carvalho, Rodrigo Furtado
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Outros Autores: Özcan, Mutlu, Louzada, Frederico [UNESP], Monteiro, Evelyn [UNESP], Bottino, Marco Antonio [UNESP], de Melo, Renata Marques [UNESP], Valandro, Luiz Felipe
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1197090; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/178080
• topic: Adhesion; air-abrasion; cementation; ceramics; etching; microshear bond test; surface conditioning; zirconia

This study compared air-abrasion and etching regimens on adhesion of resin luting agent to zirconium dioxide. Ceramic specimens (LAVA, 3 M ESPE) (N = 16) were embedded in acrylic resin and exposed surfaces were polished. The specimens were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 12, 3 specimens for each disc): SC: Air-borne particle abrasion (30 μm aluminum oxide particles coated with silica, CoJet, 3 M ESPE); MH: Heated chemical solution (Methanol-800 mL; 37% Hydrochloric Acid-200 mL; Ferric Chloride-2 g) at 100 °C for 30 min, MHP: Primer (Metal/Zirconia Primer, Ivoclar Vivadent) + MH, P: Primer only (Metal/Zirconia Primer). Cylindrical molds (internal diameter: 0.7 mm; height: 1.5 mm) were placed on each conditioned specimen, filled with resin cement (Multilink Automix) and photo-polymerized for 60 s. After 24 h, the molds were removed and the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for six months). Microshear test was performed in a Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min). Failures types were classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive. In another set of specimens (n = 2 per group) contact angle measurements were recorded. Data were analyzed statistically using Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests (α = 0.05). The surface conditioning method significantly affected the mean bond strength (MPa) (p < 0.0001): SC(18.3 ± 0.3)a < P(5.00 ± 0.07)b < MHP(4.7 ± 0.08)c < MH(0.84 ± 0.01)c. While Group SC showed mainly adhesive (58%) and mixed (41.7%) failure types, groups MH, MHP, and P presented exclusively adhesive failures. SC, MHP, and P (29–32°) showed lower contact angle than MH (78.9°). Volume loss was the highest with MHP (9.92 μl) followed by SC (9.67 μl).