This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different primer/resin luting agent combinations and alumina air abrasion on the adhesion to zirconia. Eighty blocks (4×4×3 mm) of Lava Frame Zirconia (3M ESPE) were produced and randomly assigned into eight groups (n=10) according to two zirconia surface treatments (untreated or air abrasion with 50-μm alumina particles) and four luting systems (SU: Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Unicem 2; ZP: Z-Prime Plus/Duo-link Universal; MB: Monobond Plus/Variolink II; and AP: Alloy Primer/ED Primer II/Panavia F 2.0). After the conditioning and primer applications, resin luting agents were manipulated and applied on the zirconia, using a matrix, to form a cylinder (2 mm in diameter×2 mm high), followed by photoactivation for 40 seconds. After that, the specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 120 days and then submitted to shear bond strength testing, followed by failure mode evaluation under an optical microscope (30×). A two-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (α=0.05) were used for data analysis. Alumina air abrasion (Al) promoted higher bond values for the three luting systems, except for SU, which showed the best results without air abrasion, while with air abrasion, Al-SU, Al-ZP, and Al-MB presented higher values compared to Al-AP. We concluded that the alumina air abrasion of zirconia surfaces seemed to be dispensable for the SU group, while air abrasion (topographical alterations) enhanced the adhesion of the ZP, MB, and AP groups.

This study examined the effects of distinct hydrofluoric acid concentrations on the mechanical behavior of a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic. Bar-shaped specimens were produced from ceramic blocks (e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). The specimens were polished, chamfered, and sonically cleaned in distilled water. The specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 23). The HF1, HF3, HF5, and HF10 specimens were etched for 20 s with acid concentrations of 1%, 3%, 5%, and 10%, respectively, while the SC (control) sample was untreated. The etched surfaces were evaluated using a scanning electron microscope and an atomic force microscope. Finally, the roughness was measured, and 3-point bending flexural tests were performed. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The Weibull modulus and characteristic strength were also determined. No statistical difference in the roughness and flexural strength was determined among the groups. The structural reliabilities (Weilbull moduli) were similar for the tested groups; however, the characteristic strength of the HF1 specimen was greater than that of the HF10 specimen. Compared with the untreated ceramic, the surface roughness and flexural strength of the ceramic were unaffected upon etching, regardless of the acid concentration. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 885-891, 2017.

This study evaluated the effect of different hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentrations on the bond strength between a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic and a resin cement. Eighty ceramic-blocks (12×7×2 mm) of IPS e.Max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) were produced and randomly assigned to 8 groups, considering 2 study factors: HF concentration in 4 levels, i.e., 1% (HF1), 3% (HF3), 5% (HF5), and 10% (HF10), and storage in 2 levels, i.e., baseline (tests were performed 24 h after cementation), and aged (storage for 150 days + 12,000 thermal-cycles at 5°C and 55°C). Acid etching (20 s) was performed, followed by washing, drying, and silanization. Four resin cement cylinders (ϕ= 0.96 mm) were built-up from starch matrices on each ceramic sample (n= 40). Additional ceramic samples were etched and analyzed for contact angle, micro-morphology, and roughness. In baseline condition (without aging), the HF3, HF5, and HF10 groups showed similar bond strength values (13.9 - 15.9 MPa), and HF1 (11.2 MPa) presented lower values than HF5, being that statistically different (p= 0.012). After aging, all the mean bond strengths statistically decreased, being that HF3, HF5, and HF10 (7.8 - 11 MPa) were similar and higher than HF1 (1.8 MPa) (p= 0.0001). For contact angle, HF3, HF5, and HF10 presented similar values (7.8 - 10.4°), lower than HF1 and CTRL groups. HF5 and HF10 presented rougher surfaces than other conditions. For better bond strength results, the tested ceramic may be etched by HF acid in concentrations of 3%, 5%, and 10%.