Cargando…
The Evaluation of Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Titanium Using Different Surface Treatment Methods: An In Vitro Study
This study attempted to investigate the effect of sandblasting and H(2)O(2) treatments on the microshear bond strength of two commercially available resin cements. A total of 90 cube-shaped specimens of commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) were divided into two groups of Panavia and MHA cements (n = 4...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35225911 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7010018 |
Sumario: | This study attempted to investigate the effect of sandblasting and H(2)O(2) treatments on the microshear bond strength of two commercially available resin cements. A total of 90 cube-shaped specimens of commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) were divided into two groups of Panavia and MHA cements (n = 45). Samples of the Panavia group were randomly divided into three subgroups of 15 samples, including subgroups (no treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and immersion in 35% hydrogen peroxide solution with halogen light). Once the treatment was completed, Panavia V5 was applied on the cp-Ti surface by a Tygon tube. The 45 specimens of the MHA cement group were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 15) similarly to the Panavia group. Then, the MHA was applied on the surface of cp-Ti. A universal testing machine was used to measure and examine the microshear bond strength of cement to cp-Ti subsequent to the step of thermocycling. According to results, in the Panavia cement group, the SBS of sandblasting treatment was significantly higher than that of the H(2)O(2) treatment subgroup (p < 0.05), which displayed a significantly higher SBS than that of the no-treatment subgroup (p < 0.001). In regard to the MHA group, the SBS of the H(2)O(2) treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the sandblasting treatment subgroup (p < 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences between the SBS of the no treatment and H(2)O(2) treatment subgroups (p = 0.35). Considering the comparison between Panavia and MHA cases, there were no significant differences observed among the no-treatment subgroups (p = 0.34), as well as the sandblasting treatment subgroups (p = 0.67), while the SBS of the H(2)O(2) treatment subgroup in Panavia cement was higher than that of the H(2)O(2) subgroup in MHA cement (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in both Panavia V5 and MHA cements, sandblasting treatment could improve the bond strength between the titanium surface. However, H(2)O(2) treatment proved to be capable of enhancing the bond strength of Panavia V5 cement without causing any positive effects on the bond strength of MHA cement. |
---|