Jordana Dias Martins, DDS, MSc, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), São Pedro, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura, DDS, MSc, PhD, professor, Department of Dentistry, State University of Rio Grande do Norte (UERN), Caicó/RN, Brazil.
Oper Dent. 2022 Mar 1;47(2):202-213. doi: 10.2341/20-156-L.
To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium silicate (LS) and lithium disilicate (LD) ceramics, after thermocycling.
For SBS test, 72 ceramic blocks (18×14×2 mm) were made (24 blocks from each ceramic material): VITA Suprinity (LSS), Celtra Duo (LSC), and Lithium disilicate (LD). The blocks were polished with sandpaper of increasing grit (#280, #400, #800, and #1200) and embedded in chemically activated acrylic resin. Afterwards, they were randomly divided into 12 groups (6 blocks per group) according to: "Ceramic" (LD, LSC, and LSS) and "Surface treatment" (HFS: hydrofluoric acid + silane; MEP: Monobond Etch & Prime/Ivoclar). From each treated surface ceramic block, four dual-curing resin cement cylinders (RelyX U200, 3M Oral Care) were prepared using a Tygon tube (Ø=3 mm and h=2 mm) and light cured for 40 seconds (1000 mW/cm2) (N=288/n=24). All specimens were submitted to thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C, 30 seconds) and then to SBS test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min using a 50-kgf load cell. Forty-five additional blocks were made for roughness and SEM analysis. Failure mode was also performed. The data (MPa) were statistically analyzed by oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey test (5%), and Weibull analysis. The Ra was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn Test (5%). The other variables were analyzed qualitatively.
ANOVA revealed that "surface treatment" was significant for all ceramic materials (p<0.05). The LD-HFS (18.66±3.49), LSC-HFS (16.81±2.62), and LSS-HFS (16.33±3.08) groups had significantly higher SBS than the LD-MEP (7.00±4.2), LSCMEP (14.12±3.51), and LSS-MEP (13.87±2.52) groups. Complete adhesive failures at the cement-dentin interface were more frequent. Weibull modulus was superior for the LD-HFS (6.22), LSC-HFS (8.8), and LSS-HFS (7.4) groups.
HF followed by silanization is the most suitable surface treatment for the cementation of LS and LD glass ceramics.
评估不同表面处理对锂硅（LS）和锂二硅（LD）陶瓷在热循环后的剪切结合强度（SBS）的影响。
为了进行 SBS 测试，制作了 72 个陶瓷块（每个陶瓷材料 24 个块）：VITA Suprinity（LSS）、Celtra Duo（LSC）和 Lithium disilicate（LD）。将陶瓷块用砂纸（#280、#400、#800 和#1200）依次打磨并嵌入化学激活丙烯酸树脂中。然后，根据“陶瓷”（LD、LSC 和 LSS）和“表面处理”（HFS：氢氟酸+硅烷；MEP：Monobond Etch & Prime/Ivoclar）将它们随机分为 12 组（每组 6 个块）。从每个经过处理的陶瓷块表面，使用 Tygon 管（Ø=3mm，h=2mm）制备四个双固化树脂水泥圆柱体（RelyX U200，3M Oral Care），并用 1000mW/cm2 的光固化器光固化 40 秒（N=288/n=24）。所有样本均进行热循环（10000 次循环，5°C 和 55°C，30 秒），然后在交叉头速度为 1mm/min 的情况下进行 SBS 测试，使用 50-kgf 负载单元。另外制作了 45 个块用于粗糙度和 SEM 分析。还进行了失效模式分析。数据（MPa）通过单向方差分析（ANOVA）、Tukey 检验（5%）和威布尔分析进行统计分析。Ra 通过 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Dunn 检验（5%）进行分析。其他变量进行定性分析。
ANOVA 显示，对于所有陶瓷材料，“表面处理”都是显著的（p<0.05）。LD-HFS（18.66±3.49）、LSC-HFS（16.81±2.62）和 LSS-HFS（16.33±3.08）组的 SBS 明显高于 LD-MEP（7.00±4.2）、LSCMEP（14.12±3.51）和 LSS-MEP（13.87±2.52）组。在牙本质-水泥界面处经常发生完全的黏附性失效。威布尔模数对于 LD-HFS（6.22）、LSC-HFS（8.8）和 LSS-HFS（7.4）组是最优的。
HF 随后进行硅烷化处理是 LS 和 LD 玻璃陶瓷粘结的最适宜的表面处理方法。
