Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Zürich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zürich, Switzerland.
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
Odontology. 2011 Jan;99(1):62-67. doi: 10.1007/s10266-010-0144-1. Epub 2011 Jan 27.
For cementation of yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconium polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramic frameworks, protocols of surface-conditioning methods and available cements vary, resulting in confusion among clinicians regarding selection and effects of different conditioning methods on cement adhesion. This study evaluated the effect of two silanes (3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate (MPS) and 3-trimethoxysilylpropylmethacrylate/4-methacryloyloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride methyl methacrylate (MPS/4-META) on the adhesion of two resin-based cements (SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0) to Y-TZP ceramic and compared several protocols with those indicated by the manufacturer of each of these cements. Disks of Y-TZP ceramic (LAVA, 3M ESPE) (n = 60) were divided into six experimental groups (n = 10 per group) and treated as follows: (1) silica coating (SC) + MPS silane + SuperBond; (2) SC + MPS/4-META + silane + SuperBond); (3) SC + MPS silane + Panavia F 2.0); (4) SC + MPS/4-META silane + Panavia F 2.0); (5) no conditioning + MPS/4-META silane + Super-Bond (SuperBond instructions); and (6) 50-μm Al(2)O(3) conditioning + Panavia F 2.0 (Panavia F 2.0 instructions). The specimens were subjected to shear-bond testing after water storage at 37 °C for 3 months in the dark. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD (α = 0.05). After silica coating, the mean bond strength of SuperBond cement was not significantly different between MPS and MPS/4-META silanes (20.2 ± 3.7 and 20.9 ± 1.6 MPa, respectively), but the mean bond strength of Panavia F 2.0 was significantly higher with MPS silane (24.4 ± 5.3 MPa) than with MPS/4-META (12.3 ± 1.4 MPa) (P < 0.001). The SuperBond manufacturer's instructions alone resulted in significantly higher bond strength (9.7 ± 3.1 MPa) than the Panavia F 2.0 manufacturer's instruction (0 MPa) (P < 0.001). When silica coating and silanization were used, both SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 cements demonstrated higher bond strengths they did when the manufacturers' instructions were followed. With SuperBond, use of MPS or MPS/4-META silane resulted in no significant difference when the ceramic surface was silica coated, but with Panavia F 2.0, use of MPS silane resulted in a significantly higher bond strength than use of MPS/4-META. Use of chairside silica coating and silanization to condition the zirconia surface improved adhesion compared with the manufacturers' cementation protocols for SuperBond and Panavia F 2.0 resin cements.
用于 Y-TZP 陶瓷框架的胶结，表面处理方法和可用的水泥的方案各不相同，这导致临床医生在选择和不同处理方法对水泥粘附的影响方面感到困惑。本研究评估了两种硅烷（3-三甲氧基甲硅烷基丙基甲基丙烯酸酯（MPS）和 3-三甲氧基甲硅烷基丙基甲基丙烯酸酯/4-甲代丙烯酰氧基乙基偏苯三酸酐甲基丙烯酸甲酯（MPS/4-META））对两种树脂基水泥（SuperBond 和 Panavia F 2.0）与 Y-TZP 陶瓷之间的粘附的影响，并与这些水泥的制造商所指示的几种方案进行了比较。Y-TZP 陶瓷（LAVA，3M ESPE）（n = 60）的圆盘被分为六个实验组（n = 10/组），并如下处理：（1）二氧化硅涂层（SC）+ MPS 硅烷+ SuperBond；（2）SC + MPS/4-META + 硅烷+ SuperBond）；（3）SC + MPS 硅烷+ Panavia F 2.0）；（4）SC + MPS/4-META 硅烷+ Panavia F 2.0）；（5）无处理+ MPS/4-META 硅烷+ SuperBond（SuperBond 说明书）；和（6）50-μm Al（2）O（3）处理+ Panavia F 2.0（Panavia F 2.0 说明书）。在黑暗中在 37°C 下储存 3 个月后，将样品进行剪切结合测试。通过方差分析和 Tukey 的 HSD（α=0.05）分析数据。在用二氧化硅涂层处理后，SuperBond 水泥的平均粘结强度在 MPS 和 MPS/4-META 硅烷之间没有显着差异（分别为 20.2±3.7 和 20.9±1.6 MPa），但 Panavia F 2.0 的平均粘结强度用 MPS 硅烷（24.4±5.3 MPa）明显高于 MPS/4-META（12.3±1.4 MPa）（P <0.001）。SuperBond 制造商的说明单独使用时，粘结强度（9.7±3.1 MPa）明显高于 Panavia F 2.0 制造商的说明（0 MPa）（P <0.001）。当使用二氧化硅涂层和硅烷化时，SuperBond 和 Panavia F 2.0 水泥的粘结强度均高于制造商的说明。使用 SuperBond 时，当陶瓷表面涂有二氧化硅时，使用 MPS 或 MPS/4-META 硅烷没有显着差异，但使用 Panavia F 2.0 时，使用 MPS 硅烷的粘结强度明显高于使用 MPS/4-META。使用椅旁二氧化硅涂层和硅烷化处理氧化锆表面可改善与 SuperBond 和 Panavia F 2.0 树脂水泥制造商的水泥粘结协议相比的粘附性。
