J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(4):319-327. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a42929.
To evaluate the effect of different application modes of a recently introduced self-etching ceramic primer on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) and ceramic surface-etching pattern of two glass-ceramic surfaces.
Twenty-two CAD/CAM blocks of lithium disilicate (LD) and feldspathic glass ceramic (VTR) were each cut into 4 rectangular sections (n = 88 for ceramic surface). The LD and VTR specimens were divided into one control group (hydrofluoric acid + silane coupling agent [HF+SII]), and 10 experimental groups using Monobond Etch and Prime (MEP) applied for a combination of scrubbing times (5, 10, 20, 40, and 60 s) and reaction times (20 or 40 s). After each treatment, Tygon matrices (n = 8) were filled with a resin cement and light cured for each ceramic specimen. The specimens were stored in water at 37°C for 24 h and subjected to the μSBS test. The failure pattern and μSBS were statistically evaluated (α = 0.05). In addition, the ceramic surface etching pattern was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy.
For the LD groups, the application of MEP 60/40 resulted in a higher mean μSBS compared to HF+SI (p < 0.05). Groups 5/40, 10/40, and 20/40 resulted in mean μSBS similar to that obtained by HF+SI (p > 0.05). For VTR, no significant difference was observed among the groups (p = 0.32). Compared with MEP, HF better promoted the dissolution of glass matrix for both ceramics. However, prolonged MEP scrubbing or reaction caused significant dissolution of the glass matrix for both evaluated ceramics.
Active and prolonged application of MEP may be a viable alternative to HF+SI for increasing the bond strength to LD.
评估最近引入的自酸蚀陶瓷底漆的不同应用模式对两种玻璃陶瓷表面的微剪切结合强度（μSBS）和陶瓷表面蚀刻模式的影响。
将 22 个 CAD/CAM 块的锂二硅玻璃陶瓷（LD）和长石质玻璃陶瓷（VTR）各切成 4 个矩形部分（陶瓷表面 n = 88）。LD 和 VTR 标本分为一组对照（氢氟酸+硅烷偶联剂[HF+SII]）和 10 个实验组，使用 Monobond Etch 和 Prime（MEP）应用不同的刷洗时间（5、10、20、40 和 60 s）和反应时间（20 或 40 s）。在每次处理后，将 Tygon 基质（n = 8）填充到每个陶瓷标本中的树脂水泥中并进行光固化。将标本在 37°C 的水中储存 24 h，然后进行 μSBS 测试。使用扫描电子显微镜分析陶瓷表面的蚀刻模式。
对于 LD 组，与 HF+SI 相比，MEP 60/40 的应用导致平均 μSBS 更高（p < 0.05）。5/40、10/40 和 20/40 组的平均 μSBS 与 HF+SI 相似（p > 0.05）。对于 VTR，各组之间没有观察到显著差异（p = 0.32）。与 MEP 相比，HF 更能促进两种陶瓷的玻璃基质的溶解。然而，长时间的 MEP 刷洗或反应会导致两种评估的陶瓷的玻璃基质明显溶解。
对于增加 LD 的结合强度，MEP 的主动和延长应用可能是 HF+SI 的可行替代方案。
