Valandro Luiz F, Ozcan Mutlu, Amaral Regina, Vanderlei Aleska, Bottino Marco A
Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry Federal University of Santa Maria, School of Dentistry, Santa Maria, Brazil.
Dent Mater J. 2008 Nov;27(6):849-55. doi: 10.4012/dmj.27.849.
This study tested the bond strength of a resin cement to a glass-infiltrated zirconia-alumina ceramic after three conditioning methods and using two test methods (shear-SBS versus microtensile-MTBS). Ceramic blocks for MTBS and ceramic disks for SBS were fabricated. Three surface conditioning (SC) methods were evaluated: (1) 110-microm Al2O3+silanization; (2) Chairside silica coating+silanization; (3) Laboratory silica coating+silanization. Following surface conditioning, the resin cement (Panavia F) was bonded to the conditioned ceramics. Although no statistically significant differences (p = 0.1076) were seen between the test methods, results yielded with the different surface conditioning methods showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.0001) (SC2 = SC3 > SC1). As for the interaction between the factors, two-way ANOVA showed that it was not statistically significant (p = 0.1443). MTBS test resulted in predominantly mixed failure (85%), but SBS test resulted in exclusively adhesive failure. On the effects of different surface conditioning methods, chairside and laboratory tribochemical silica coating followed by silanization showed higher bond strength results compared to those of aluminum oxide abrasion and silanization, independent of the test method employed.
本研究在三种预处理方法后,使用两种测试方法(剪切粘结强度-SBS与微拉伸粘结强度-MTBS)测试了树脂水门汀与玻璃渗透氧化锆-氧化铝陶瓷之间的粘结强度。制备了用于MTBS的陶瓷块和用于SBS的陶瓷盘。评估了三种表面预处理(SC)方法:(1)110微米Al2O3+硅烷化;(2)椅旁二氧化硅涂层+硅烷化;(3)实验室二氧化硅涂层+硅烷化。表面预处理后,将树脂水门汀(Panavia F)粘结到预处理过的陶瓷上。虽然测试方法之间未观察到统计学上的显著差异(p = 0.1076),但不同表面预处理方法得到的结果显示出统计学上的显著差异(p < 0.0001)(SC2 = SC3 > SC1)。至于各因素之间的相互作用,双向方差分析表明其无统计学意义(p = 0.1443)。MTBS测试主要导致混合破坏(85%),但SBS测试仅导致粘结破坏。关于不同表面预处理方法的效果,与氧化铝研磨和硅烷化相比,椅旁和实验室摩擦化学二氧化硅涂层后再进行硅烷化显示出更高的粘结强度结果,与所采用的测试方法无关。