Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, Araçatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University - UNESP, Rua José Bonifácio, 1193, Araçatuba, SP 16015050, Brazil.
J Dent. 2022 Dec;127:104348. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104348. Epub 2022 Oct 22.
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of different times and concentrations of hydrofluoric acid etching on the surface of indirect restorative materials obtained from blocks used in CAD-CAM technology.
Specimens (4 mm × 4 mm × 0.8 mm) were obtained for each indirect restorative material: zirconia-reinforced lithium monosilicate ceramic (Celtra Duo), nanoceramic resin (Lava Ultimate), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network material (Vita Enamic). The materials were submitted to etching with 5% or 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20, 40, 60, or 90 s. A control group for each material was evaluated without any surface treatment, totaling nine experimental groups for each material (n = 10). The specimens were evaluated for surface roughness (R and R), confocal optical microscopy, the contact angle (θ), surface free energy (γs), total free interaction energy (∆G) using a goniometer, and microshear bond strength to resin cement. Specimen images were obtained using scanning electron microscopy, confocal optical microscopy, and atomic force microscopy. Data on the surface roughness, the contact angle, surface free energy, total free interaction energy, and bond strength were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey´s test (α=0.05).
In general, Celtra Duo showed better results after etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 40 or 60 s. Lava Ultimate showed better performance after etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 or 40 s, whereas Vita Enamic showed better results after etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 90 s.
Each material showed different characteristics after etching with hydrofluoric acid. Knowledge of the proper protocol for each material is essential to ensure improvements in the adhesion process and durability of indirect restorations. In general, Celtra Duo presented mechanical properties superior to those of Lava Ultimate and Vita Enamic.
Specific etching protocols must be recommended for each indirect material because longer exposure to hydrofluoric acid can jeopardize the surface, thus affecting the mechanical and bond strength properties.
本体外研究旨在评估不同时间和浓度的氢氟酸蚀刻对 CAD-CAM 技术中使用的块体获得的间接修复材料表面的影响。
为每种间接修复材料(氧化锆增强硅酸锂陶瓷[Celtra Duo]、纳米陶瓷树脂[Lava Ultimate]和聚合物渗透陶瓷网络材料[Vita Enamic])获得 4mm×4mm×0.8mm 的样本。将材料用 5%或 10%氢氟酸蚀刻 20、40、60 或 90s。每种材料均评估一个无表面处理的对照组,每种材料总计 9 个实验组(n=10)。评估样本的表面粗糙度(R 和 R)、共聚焦光学显微镜、接触角(θ)、表面自由能(γs)、用接触角测量仪测量的总自由相互作用能(∆G)以及与树脂水泥的微剪切粘结强度。使用扫描电子显微镜、共聚焦光学显微镜和原子力显微镜获取样本图像。表面粗糙度、接触角、表面自由能、总自由相互作用能和粘结强度的数据进行了双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验(α=0.05)。
一般来说,Celtra Duo 经 10%氢氟酸蚀刻 40 或 60s 后效果更好。Lava Ultimate 经 10%氢氟酸蚀刻 20 或 40s 后性能更好,而 Vita Enamic 经 5%氢氟酸蚀刻 90s 后效果更好。
每种材料经氢氟酸蚀刻后表现出不同的特性。了解每种材料的适当方案对于确保间接修复的粘结过程和耐久性的改进至关重要。一般来说,Celtra Duo 表现出的机械性能优于 Lava Ultimate 和 Vita Enamic。
必须针对每种间接材料推荐特定的蚀刻方案,因为更长时间暴露于氢氟酸会损害表面,从而影响机械性能和粘结强度。