Cargando…

Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)

BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of Er:YAG Laser and Air particle abrasion (APA) surface treatments on shear bond strength of Y-TZP to composite resin cuboids in the presence and absence of primer application and salivary contamination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two cuboidal shaped specimens 7x...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joukhadar, Christelle, Osman, Essam, Rayyan, Mohammad, Shrebaty, Mohammed
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7071543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32190197
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.56242
_version_ 1783506225982341120
author Joukhadar, Christelle
Osman, Essam
Rayyan, Mohammad
Shrebaty, Mohammed
author_facet Joukhadar, Christelle
Osman, Essam
Rayyan, Mohammad
Shrebaty, Mohammed
author_sort Joukhadar, Christelle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of Er:YAG Laser and Air particle abrasion (APA) surface treatments on shear bond strength of Y-TZP to composite resin cuboids in the presence and absence of primer application and salivary contamination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two cuboidal shaped specimens 7x7x3 were prepared from Y-TZP using CADCAM, cleaned and sintered. Specimens were divided into 2 main groups (n=36) according to surface treatment method; Air particle abrasion (A) and laser (L). Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups (N = 18) according to surface modification using primer; each subgroup was further divided into 2 subdivisions (N=9) according to the presence of salivary contamination; APC (Air particle abrasion, primer, contamination), AP (Air particle abrasion, primer), AC (Air particle abrasion, contamination), A (Air particle abrasion), LPC (Laser, primer, contamination), LP (Laser, primer), LC (Laser, contamination), L (Laser). Composite cuboids having dimensions of 6x6x3 were also fabricated using custom made plexi plates. Composite cuboids were cemented centrally to zirconia cuboids and light cured under 5 kg weight for 6 mins. Shear bond strength of specimens was measured utilizing universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure loads were recorded in Newton. SBS was calculated according to equation: SBS (MPa) = load (N)/area(mm2). RESULTS: Viewing shear bond strength between studied groups, group APNC (484.02±85.02) showed higher mean value compared to ANPNC (122.09±55.80), also LNPNC (120.87±65.10) showed higher mean value in comparison to LPNC (170.78±53.22). APNC (484.02±85.02) and APC (592.22±189.65) showed higher mean values than LPNC (170.78±53.22) and LPC (3227.66±108.28) in sequence. CONCLUSIONS: APA showed higher SBS values than Er:YAG surface treatment. Primer showed better results than no primer coating. Artificial saliva contamination did not affect the SBS of zirconia compared with no contamination results. Key words:Shear bond strength, zirconia, air particle abrasion, Er:YAG laser, primer, contamination.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7071543
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70715432020-03-18 Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study) Joukhadar, Christelle Osman, Essam Rayyan, Mohammad Shrebaty, Mohammed J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of Er:YAG Laser and Air particle abrasion (APA) surface treatments on shear bond strength of Y-TZP to composite resin cuboids in the presence and absence of primer application and salivary contamination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two cuboidal shaped specimens 7x7x3 were prepared from Y-TZP using CADCAM, cleaned and sintered. Specimens were divided into 2 main groups (n=36) according to surface treatment method; Air particle abrasion (A) and laser (L). Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups (N = 18) according to surface modification using primer; each subgroup was further divided into 2 subdivisions (N=9) according to the presence of salivary contamination; APC (Air particle abrasion, primer, contamination), AP (Air particle abrasion, primer), AC (Air particle abrasion, contamination), A (Air particle abrasion), LPC (Laser, primer, contamination), LP (Laser, primer), LC (Laser, contamination), L (Laser). Composite cuboids having dimensions of 6x6x3 were also fabricated using custom made plexi plates. Composite cuboids were cemented centrally to zirconia cuboids and light cured under 5 kg weight for 6 mins. Shear bond strength of specimens was measured utilizing universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure loads were recorded in Newton. SBS was calculated according to equation: SBS (MPa) = load (N)/area(mm2). RESULTS: Viewing shear bond strength between studied groups, group APNC (484.02±85.02) showed higher mean value compared to ANPNC (122.09±55.80), also LNPNC (120.87±65.10) showed higher mean value in comparison to LPNC (170.78±53.22). APNC (484.02±85.02) and APC (592.22±189.65) showed higher mean values than LPNC (170.78±53.22) and LPC (3227.66±108.28) in sequence. CONCLUSIONS: APA showed higher SBS values than Er:YAG surface treatment. Primer showed better results than no primer coating. Artificial saliva contamination did not affect the SBS of zirconia compared with no contamination results. Key words:Shear bond strength, zirconia, air particle abrasion, Er:YAG laser, primer, contamination. Medicina Oral S.L. 2020-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7071543/ /pubmed/32190197 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.56242 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Joukhadar, Christelle
Osman, Essam
Rayyan, Mohammad
Shrebaty, Mohammed
Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
title Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
title_full Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
title_fullStr Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
title_short Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
title_sort comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7071543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32190197
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.56242
work_keys_str_mv AT joukhadarchristelle comparisonbetweendifferentsurfacetreatmentmethodsonshearbondstrengthofzirconiainvitrostudy
AT osmanessam comparisonbetweendifferentsurfacetreatmentmethodsonshearbondstrengthofzirconiainvitrostudy
AT rayyanmohammad comparisonbetweendifferentsurfacetreatmentmethodsonshearbondstrengthofzirconiainvitrostudy
AT shrebatymohammed comparisonbetweendifferentsurfacetreatmentmethodsonshearbondstrengthofzirconiainvitrostudy