...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of dentistry >Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic.
【24h】

Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic.

机译:陶瓷表面处理对胶粘剂对CAD-CAM陶瓷粘结强度的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the micro-tensile bond strength (muTBS) of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. The hypothesis tested was that neither of the surface treatments would produce higher bond strength of the adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. METHODS: Ceramic specimens of two different sizes (6mmx8mmx3 mm; 13mmx8mmx4mm) were fabricated from ProCAD ceramic blocs (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with a low-speed diamond saw. The ceramic blocks were divided into seven groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4); group 3: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4)+silane; group 4: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4)+silane+adhesive resin; group 5: etching with 4.9% HF acid; group 6: etching with 4.9% HF acid+silane; group 7: etching with HF acid+silane+adhesive resin. After surface treatment, two differently sized porcelain disks were bonded together with a composite luting agent (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent). The specimens were stored for 24h in distilled water at 37 degrees C prior to muTBS testing. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the influence of surface treatment and Scheffe multiple comparisons test determined pair-wise statistical differences (p<0.05) in muTBS between the experimental groups. RESULTS: The mean muTBSs (standard deviation) are: group 1: 12.8 (+/-4.6)MPa; group 2: 19.1 (+/-5.0)MPa; group 3: 27.4 (+/-11.1)MPa; group 4: 34.0 (+/-8.9)MPa; group 5: 37.6 (+/-8.4) MPa; group 6: 34.6 (+/-12.8)MPa; group 7: 34.5 (+/-5.1)MPa. Statistical significant differences were found between group 1 and groups 3-7, and between group 2 and groups 4-7. All specimens of groups 1-4 exhibited adhesive failures, while a combination of adhesive and mixed (adhesive and cohesive) failures was observed in the specimens of groups 5-7. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that surface treatment is important to bond to ceramic and suggests that etching is needed preferably with hydrofluoric acid than with phosphoric acid.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是评估不同表面处理对胶粘剂对CAD-CAM陶瓷的微拉伸粘合强度(muTBS)的影响。检验的假设是,两种表面处理都不会产生胶粘剂对CAD-CAM陶瓷的更高粘结强度。方法:使用低速金刚石锯从ProCAD陶瓷块(Ivoclar-Vivadent)制作两种不同尺寸(6mmx8mmx3 mm; 13mmx8mmx4mm)的陶瓷样品。陶瓷块分为七个组,并进行以下表面处理:第一组:未处理;第二组:未处理。第2组:用37%H(3)PO(4)蚀刻;第3组:用37%的H(3)PO(4)+硅烷蚀刻;第4组:使用37%的H(3)PO(4)+硅烷+粘合剂树脂进行蚀刻;第5组:用4.9%HF酸蚀刻;第6组:用4.9%HF酸+硅烷蚀刻;第7组:使用HF酸+硅烷+粘合剂树脂进行蚀刻。表面处理后,将两种不同尺寸的瓷盘与复合浸润剂(Variolink II,Ivoclar-Vivadent)粘合在一起。在进行muTBS测试之前,将样品在37摄氏度的蒸馏水中保存24小时。方差的单向分析用于测试表面处理的影响,Scheffe多重比较测试确定了实验组之间muTBS的成对统计差异(p <0.05)。结果:平均muTBS(标准偏差)为:第一组:12.8(+/- 4.6)MPa; 2组:19.1(+/- 5.0)MPa; 3组:27.4(+/- 11.1)MPa; 4组:34.0(+/- 8.9)MPa; 5组:37.6(+/- 8.4)MPa; 6组:34.6(+/- 12.8)MPa;第7组:34.5(+/- 5.1)MPa。在第1组和第3-7组之间以及第2组和第4-7组之间发现统计学上的显着差异。第1-4组的所有样品均表现出粘合失败,而在第5-7组的样品中观察到粘合和混合(粘合和内聚)失败的组合。结论:结果表明,表面处理对于粘结到陶瓷很重要,并且建议与氢磷酸相比,需要使用氢氟酸进行蚀刻。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号