Valian Azam, Salehi Elham Moravej, Mahmoudzadeh Mehrangar, Dabagh Neda Kheirkhah
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Private dental practice, Tehran, Iran.
Dent Med Probl. 2021 Jan-Mar;58(1):107-113. doi: 10.17219/dmp/130101.
Considering the use of silane-containing universal adhesives to enhance the repair bond strength of porcelain restorations, a question arises whether the application of these adhesives eliminates the need for a separate application of silane or not.
This study aimed to assess the effect of various kinds of surface treatment, including hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, the application of bis-silane and the use of universal adhesives, on the repair bond strength of feldspathic porcelain.
In this experimental in vitro study, 70 porcelain disks were fabricated and divided into 7 groups (n = 10) for the following types of surface treatment: C (control group) – HF etching + silane + Porcelain Bond; HSB – HF etching + Single Bond; HSSB – HF etching + silane + Single Bond; HAB – HF etching + All Bond; HSAB – HF etching + silane + All Bond; HFB – HF etching + FuturaBond®; and HSFB – HF etching + silane + FuturaBond. After applying different kinds of surface treatment, the specimens were light-cured and the Filtek® Z250 composite was bonded to the treated surfaces. The specimens were incubated in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, and then underwent 5,000 thermal cycles. The repair bond strength of porcelain was measured and the mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data was analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test.
Differences between the groups in the porcelain repair bond strength were significant (p < 0.0001). Bond strength for Single Bond (p < 0.001) and All Bond (p < 0.001) along with silane was significantly higher than for the application of these adhesives without a separate silane application step. This difference was not significant for FuturaBond. Mixed failure was the dominant mode of failure in all groups.
The application of silane, irrespective of the use of universal adhesives with or without silane, increased the porcelain repair bond strength. Thus, a separate silane application step following HF etching and the use of universal adhesives with or without silane can enhance the repair bond strength of feldspathic porcelain.
考虑到使用含硅烷的通用粘结剂来提高瓷修复体的修复粘结强度，一个问题出现了，即这些粘结剂的应用是否消除了单独应用硅烷的必要性。
本研究旨在评估各种表面处理方法，包括氢氟酸（HF）蚀刻、双硅烷的应用和通用粘结剂的使用，对长石质瓷修复粘结强度的影响。
在这项体外实验研究中，制作了70个瓷盘，并将其分为7组（每组n = 10），进行以下类型的表面处理：C（对照组）——HF蚀刻+硅烷+瓷粘结剂；HSB——HF蚀刻+单组分粘结剂；HSSB——HF蚀刻+硅烷+单组分粘结剂；HAB——HF蚀刻+全效粘结剂；HSAB——HF蚀刻+硅烷+全效粘结剂；HFB——HF蚀刻+FuturaBond®；以及HSFB——HF蚀刻+硅烷+FuturaBond。在进行不同类型的表面处理后，对样本进行光固化，然后将Filtek® Z250复合树脂粘结到处理过的表面。将样本在37°C的蒸馏水中孵育24小时，然后进行5000次热循环。测量瓷修复体的粘结强度，并在体视显微镜下确定失效模式。使用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）和Tukey检验对数据进行分析。
各实验组之间的瓷修复粘结强度差异显著（p < 0.0001）。单组分粘结剂（p < 0.001）和全效粘结剂（p < 0.001）在添加硅烷后的粘结强度显著高于未进行单独硅烷处理步骤时使用这些粘结剂的情况。FuturaBond在这方面差异不显著。混合失效是所有组中的主要失效模式。
无论是否使用含硅烷的通用粘结剂，硅烷的应用都提高了瓷修复粘结强度。因此，在HF蚀刻后单独应用硅烷，以及使用含或不含硅烷的通用粘结剂，均可提高长石质瓷的修复粘结强度。
