Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation

Diogo P Lise, Jorge Perdigao, Annelies Van Ende, Omar Zidan, Guilherme C Lopes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, silane solution, and adhesive system application on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD) to three resin cements. Materials and Methods: Circular bonding areas were delimited on the lithium disilicate surfaces using a perforated adhesive tape. Specimens were assigned to 18 subgroups (n=12) according to surface treatment: NT = no treatment; HF = 4.8% HF for 20 seconds; silane solution: (1) no silane; (2) Monobond Plus, a silane/10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate solution for 60 seconds; (3) Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC, a dual-cure adhesive; and resin cement: (1) Variolink II, a bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (bis-GMA)–based, hand-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (2) Multilink Automix, a bis-GMA–based, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (3) RelyX Unicem 2, a self-adhesive, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement. Tygon tubes (Ø=0.8 mm) were used as cylinder matrices for resin cement application. After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were submitted to the μSBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under an optical microscope and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin cement, or cohesive in ceramic. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way analysis of variance and Dunnett test (p
Original languageEnglish
JournalOperative Dentistry
Volume40
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 6 2015

Fingerprint

Resin Cements
Silanes
Adhesives
Hydrofluoric Acid
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
Ceramics
Analysis of Variance
lithia disilicate
Water
DCR cement

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation. / Lise, Diogo P; Perdigao, Jorge; Van Ende, Annelies; Zidan, Omar; Lopes, Guilherme C.

In: Operative Dentistry, Vol. 40, 06.01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f6dcd6c7d7204106b4e76ce2a276a350,
title = "Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation",
abstract = "Objectives: To investigate the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, silane solution, and adhesive system application on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD) to three resin cements. Materials and Methods: Circular bonding areas were delimited on the lithium disilicate surfaces using a perforated adhesive tape. Specimens were assigned to 18 subgroups (n=12) according to surface treatment: NT = no treatment; HF = 4.8{\%} HF for 20 seconds; silane solution: (1) no silane; (2) Monobond Plus, a silane/10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate solution for 60 seconds; (3) Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC, a dual-cure adhesive; and resin cement: (1) Variolink II, a bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (bis-GMA)–based, hand-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (2) Multilink Automix, a bis-GMA–based, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (3) RelyX Unicem 2, a self-adhesive, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement. Tygon tubes ({\O}=0.8 mm) were used as cylinder matrices for resin cement application. After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were submitted to the μSBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under an optical microscope and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin cement, or cohesive in ceramic. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way analysis of variance and Dunnett test (p",
author = "Lise, {Diogo P} and Jorge Perdigao and {Van Ende}, Annelies and Omar Zidan and Lopes, {Guilherme C}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "6",
doi = "10.2341/14-240-L",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation

AU - Lise, Diogo P

AU - Perdigao, Jorge

AU - Van Ende, Annelies

AU - Zidan, Omar

AU - Lopes, Guilherme C

PY - 2015/1/6

Y1 - 2015/1/6

N2 - Objectives: To investigate the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, silane solution, and adhesive system application on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD) to three resin cements. Materials and Methods: Circular bonding areas were delimited on the lithium disilicate surfaces using a perforated adhesive tape. Specimens were assigned to 18 subgroups (n=12) according to surface treatment: NT = no treatment; HF = 4.8% HF for 20 seconds; silane solution: (1) no silane; (2) Monobond Plus, a silane/10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate solution for 60 seconds; (3) Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC, a dual-cure adhesive; and resin cement: (1) Variolink II, a bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (bis-GMA)–based, hand-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (2) Multilink Automix, a bis-GMA–based, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (3) RelyX Unicem 2, a self-adhesive, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement. Tygon tubes (Ø=0.8 mm) were used as cylinder matrices for resin cement application. After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were submitted to the μSBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under an optical microscope and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin cement, or cohesive in ceramic. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way analysis of variance and Dunnett test (p

AB - Objectives: To investigate the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, silane solution, and adhesive system application on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD) to three resin cements. Materials and Methods: Circular bonding areas were delimited on the lithium disilicate surfaces using a perforated adhesive tape. Specimens were assigned to 18 subgroups (n=12) according to surface treatment: NT = no treatment; HF = 4.8% HF for 20 seconds; silane solution: (1) no silane; (2) Monobond Plus, a silane/10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate solution for 60 seconds; (3) Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC, a dual-cure adhesive; and resin cement: (1) Variolink II, a bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (bis-GMA)–based, hand-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (2) Multilink Automix, a bis-GMA–based, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (3) RelyX Unicem 2, a self-adhesive, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement. Tygon tubes (Ø=0.8 mm) were used as cylinder matrices for resin cement application. After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were submitted to the μSBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under an optical microscope and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin cement, or cohesive in ceramic. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way analysis of variance and Dunnett test (p

U2 - 10.2341/14-240-L

DO - 10.2341/14-240-L

M3 - Article

VL - 40

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

ER -