Biaxial flexure strength and physicochemical characterization of a CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic: effect of etching time, silane, and adhesive applications

Silva, Sarah Emille Gomes da; Araújo, Gabriela Monteiro de; Souza, Karina Barbosa de; Moura, Dayanne Monielle Duarte; Aurélio, Iana Lamadrid; May, Liliana Gressler; Vila-Nova, Taciana Emília Leite; Souza, Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e

doi:10.1007/s00784-022-04635-2

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The failure mode patterns of the tested groups were affected by the setup of the µTBS test. Although sectioning the cemented ceramic blocks into microbeams is laboratory-intensive and technique-sensitive work, testing the ceramic-resin-ceramic microbeams employed in this study not only had the advantage of solely evaluating the resin-ceramic interface [24] but also eliminated the incidence of cohesive failures within the ceramic material, which can be explained by the high mechanical properties of LDC [42] and the homogenous stress distribution at the interface. Overall, the γMPTES/APTEScontaining UA (SBP) showed promising performance as an LDC primer before cementation with a dual cure resin cement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives Influence Resin-Ceramic Microtensile Bond Strength

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Silane-containing universal adhesives (UAs) are marketed as adhesion promotors for glass-ceramics. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the priming capacity of γ-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (γMPTS)-containing and γ-methacryloxypropyltriethoxysilane (γMPTES)/3-(aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES)-containing universal adhesives (UAs) for lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC). Materials and Methods: Etched LDC discs were distributed into four groups according to the priming material used: (control), no priming; (MBN), LDC was primed with a universal primer (Monobond N); (SBU), γMPTS-containing UA (Single Bond Universal Adhesive) was used as a primer; and (SBP), γMPTES/APTES-containing UA (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive) was used as a primer. LDC discs were cemented using a dual-cure resin cement, then sectioned into microbeams for microtensile bond strength (μTBS) evaluation. Failure modes were assessed. Results: MBN application showed the highest μTBS among all groups. γMPTES/APTES-containing UA (SBP) resulted in considerably higher μTBS compared with γMPTS-containing UA (SBU) or the control group. The mixed failures were the most predominant among all groups. Conclusions: The effect of silane-containing UAs on resin-ceramic μTBS is material dependent. Although γMPTES/APTES-containing UA improved bonding to LDC, the priming of LDC with either of the UAs tested cannot be considered as an alternative to a separate silanization (priming) step using a universal primer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives Influence Resin-Ceramic Microtensile Bond Strength

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multilayer Ultratranslucent Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Treated With Multimode Universal Adhesive System Containing Zirconia Primer: A Clinical Report

de Miranda,

da Silva,

Santos

et al. 2024

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionUltratranslucent zirconia combines high mechanical strength and esthetics, making it ideal for monolithic restorations. This case report describes a total rehabilitation of the upper dental arch with single‐unit crowns made of multilayer ultratranslucent zirconia (Prettau 4 Anterior, Zirkonzahn), as well as the use of a simplified adhesive cementation protocol for this type of ceramic.Materials and MethodsA 64‐year‐old female patient sought rehabilitative treatment, after planning in a semi‐adjustable articulator, interim prostheses, from tooth 2 to 15, were installed to restore occlusal vertical dimension and esthetics. After all surgical, periodontal, and endodontic procedures, impressions of the upper and lower arches were taken. In the maxilla, 14 zirconia crowns with a color gradient were fabricated and cemented, with their internal surface treated with a multimode adhesive system containing zirconia primer (Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE). The same adhesive system was applied to the preparations, and the crowns were cemented with dual resin cement (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE).ResultsAfter the crowns exhibited excellent esthetic results, with only a minor fracture observed on the palatal cusps of the right first upper premolars.ConclusionsThus, ultratranslucent zirconia appears to be a viable option for oral rehabilitation with single‐unit crowns due to its excellent clinical performance.Clinical SignificanceMonolithic ultratranslucent zirconia crowns are able to reproduce the natural characteristics of dental elements. Additionally, the application of 10‐methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate‐based primer has proven to be an efficient surface treatment for adhesive cementation of UT zirconia.

show abstract

Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra‐translucent monolithic zirconia

da Silva,

da Silva

et al. 2024

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the miniflexural strength (MFS) of monolithic zirconia.Materials and MethodsTwo‐hundred and forty (240) sintered bars of translucent zirconia (ZT) and ultra‐translucent zirconia (ZUT) were obtained (8 mm ×2 mm ×1 mm). The bars were divided into 16 groups (n = 15) according to the factors “Zirconia” (ZT and ZUT), “Cementation” (Cem) and “surface treatment” (Ctrl:Control, Al:Aluminum oxide/Al2O3 50 µm, Si:Silica/SiO2 coated alumina particles oxide 30 µm, Gl:Glazing+hydrofluoric acid). Half of the bars received an adhesive layer application, followed by application of resin cement and light curing. The surface roughness was measured in non‐cemented groups. All the bars were subjected to the MFS test (1.0 mm/min; 100 kgf). Scanning electron microscopy was used for qualitative analyses. MFS data (MPa) and roughness (µm) were statistically evaluated by three‐way and two‐way ANOVA respectively and Tukey's test (5%).ResultsThe surface treatment and the interaction were significant for roughness. Glazing promoted less roughness compared to silicatization. Regarding MFS, only the zirconia and surface treatment factors were significant. For ZT, the sandblasted groups had an increase in MFS and glazing reduced it. There was no difference between the groups without cementation for the ZUT; however, ZUT.Si/Cem, and ZUT.Al/Cem obtained superior MFS among the cemented groups.ConclusionsSandblasting increases the flexural strength for ZT, while glaze application tends to reduce it. Applying resin cement increases the flexural strength of ZUT when associated with sandblasting. Sandblasting protocols promote greater surface roughness.

show abstract

Biaxial flexure strength and physicochemical characterization of a CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic: effect of etching time, silane, and adhesive applications

Cited by 3 publications

References 54 publications

Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives Influence Resin-Ceramic Microtensile Bond Strength

Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives Influence Resin-Ceramic Microtensile Bond Strength

Multilayer Ultratranslucent Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Treated With Multimode Universal Adhesive System Containing Zirconia Primer: A Clinical Report

Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra‐translucent monolithic zirconia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About