Maawadh Ahmed M, Almohareb Thamer, Al-Hamdan Rana S, Al Deeb Modhi, Naseem Mustafa, Alhenaki Aasem M, Vohra Fahim, Abduljabbar Tariq
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2020 Jan-Dec;18:2280800020966938. doi: 10.1177/2280800020966938.
The aim was to compare the repair bond strength and surface topography of lithium disilicate ceramics (LDC) and hybrid resin ceramics (HRC) using different surface conditioning treatments [low level laser therapy (LLLT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), hydrofluoric acid (HF) with silane and air abrasion (AA) and silane].
Sixty specimens each of LDC and HRC were used. Discs were prepared for each group (6 × 2 mm), conditioned using different regimes. Specimens in group 1 and 5 were laser irradiated using Er,Cr:YSGG (ECYL), group 2 and 6 were conditioned using methylene blue photosensitizer (PDT), group 3 and 7 surface was treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFA-S), group 4 and 8 conditioned with AlO air abrasion and silane (AA-S). A Porcelain Repair Kit was used according to manufacturer recommendation in all samples. Peak universal bond adhesive was rubbed on ceramic surface and then bonded with composite resin. For shear bond strength testing the specimens were placed in a universal testing machine. A stereomicroscope at 40x magnification was used to analyse failure pattern. Five specimens in each group after surface treatment were evaluated for surface changes and topography using scanning electron microscopy. The mean repair bond strength was calculated using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test at a significance level of ( < 0.05).
The highest repair bond strength was observed in group 3 (LDC) (20.57 ± 3.58 MPa) (HFA-S), whereas, the lowest score was displayed in Group 2 (LDC) using methylene blue photosensitizer (MBPS) (12.18 ± 1.08 MPa). Similarly, in HRC the highest repair SBS was presented in group 8 (AA-S) (20.52 ± 2.51 MPa) and the lowest SBS values were exhibited by PDT treated group 6 (13.22 ± 0.62 MPa).
A combination of mechanical and chemical surface treatments should be used in order to achieve adequate repair bond strength between resin composites and ceramic interface of LDC and HRC.
旨在比较使用不同表面处理方法[低强度激光治疗（LLLT）、光动力疗法（PDT）、氢氟酸（HF）与硅烷结合以及空气磨蚀（AA）与硅烷结合]处理后的二硅酸锂陶瓷（LDC）和混合树脂陶瓷（HRC）的修复粘结强度和表面形貌。
使用了60个LDC样本和60个HRC样本。为每组制备圆盘（6×2毫米），采用不同方案进行处理。第1组和第5组样本使用铒铬：钇-钪-镓石榴石（ECYL）激光照射，第2组和第6组使用亚甲蓝光敏剂进行处理（PDT），第3组和第7组表面用氢氟酸和硅烷处理（HFA-S），第4组和第8组用氧化铝空气磨蚀和硅烷处理（AA-S）。所有样本均按照制造商的建议使用瓷修复套件。将峰值通用粘结剂涂擦在陶瓷表面，然后与复合树脂粘结。为进行剪切粘结强度测试，将样本置于万能试验机中。使用放大40倍的体视显微镜分析破坏模式。使用扫描电子显微镜对每组表面处理后的5个样本进行表面变化和形貌评估。使用方差分析（ANOVA）和Tukey事后检验计算平均修复粘结强度，显著性水平为（<0.05）。
第3组（LDC）（HFA-S）观察到最高的修复粘结强度（20.57±3.58兆帕），而使用亚甲蓝光敏剂（MBPS）的第2组（LDC）显示出最低分数（12.18±1.08兆帕）。同样，在HRC中，第8组（AA-S）呈现出最高的修复剪切粘结强度（20.52±2.51兆帕），而经PDT处理的第6组显示出最低的剪切粘结强度值（13.22±0.62兆帕）。
为在LDC和HRC的树脂复合材料与陶瓷界面之间实现足够的修复粘结强度，应采用机械和化学表面处理相结合的方法。
