Journal of Dental Medicine

Statement of Problem: In a previous study it was reported that a durable resin-ceramic tensile bond could be obtained by an appropriate silane application without the need for HF acid etching the ceramic surface. Evaluation of the appropriate application of silane by other test methods seems to be necessary.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the interfacial fracture toughness of smooth and roughened ceramic surfaces bonded with a luting resin.

Materials and Methods: Ceramic discs of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness were prepared. Four different surface preparations (n=10) were carried out consisting of (1) ceramic surface polished to a 1µm finish, (2) gritblasted with 50µm alumina, (3) etched with 10% HF for 2 min, and (4) gritblasted and etched. The ceramic discs were then embedded in PMMA resin. For the adhesive area, the discs were masked with Teflon tapes. A circular hole with diameter of 3 mm and chevron-shaped with a 90° angle was punched into a piece of Teflon tape. The exposed ceramic surfaces were treated by an optimised silane treatment followed by an unfilled resin and then a luting resin cylinder of 4mm in diameter and 11 mm in length was built. Specimens were stored in two different storage

conditions: (A): Distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and (B): Distilled water at 37°C for 30 days. The interfacial fracture toughness (GIC) was measured at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. The mode of failure was examined under a stereo-zoom microscope and fracture surfaces were examined under Scanning Electron Microscope.

Results: The mean interfacial fracture toughness values were Group A: 1) 317.1±114.8, 2) 304.5±109.2, 3) 364.5±169.8, and 4) 379.4±127.8 J/m2±SD. Group B: 1) 255.6±134.4, 2) 648.0±185.1, 3) 629.3±182.6 and 4) 639.9 ±489.0 J/m2±SD. One way Analysis of Variance showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the mean interfacial fracture toughness for groups A1-A4 (P>0.05). However, the mean interfacial fracture toughness for group B1 was significantly different from that for groups B2, B3 and B4 (P<0.05). Independent-ٍٍٍSamples T-Test results showed that there was a significant increase in the GIC mean value for groups B2 and B3 after 30 days water storage (P<0.05). The modes of failure were predominantly interfacial or cohesive within the resin. Conclusions: The fracture toughness test method used in this study would be appropriate for analysis of the adhesive zone of resin-ceramic systems. From the results, it can be concluded that micro-mechanical retention by gritblasting the ceramic surfaces could be sufficient with no need for HF acid etching the ceramic surfaces when an appropriate silane application procedure is used.

Statement of Problem: Porcelain restorations are susceptible to fracture and a common method for repairing is the use of silane and composite on etched porcelain. Although HF is very effective in porcelain etching but has detrimental effects on tissues.

Purpose: In this study, the effect of APF and PHA was compared with HF in porcelain etching. Also the role of silane, unfilled resin and dentin bonding in bond strength of composite- porcelain was evaluated.

Methods and Materials: In this experimental in-vitro study, one-hundred twenty porcelain square blocks (552 mm) were prepared and bonding surfaces of each sandblasted. Samples were divided into three groups. The first group (n=40) were etched with buffered HF 9.5% (Ultradent) for 1 min., the second group (n=40) were etched with Iranian APF 1.23% (Kimia) for 10 minutes and the third group (n=40) were etched with Iranian PHA 37% (Kimia) for 1 min. Ultradent silane was applied on the surfaces of half of cases in each group. On the surfaces of half of silane-treated samples unfilled resin was applied and dentin bonding was used on the surfaces of the remaining. Samples without silane were treated in a similar manner. Composite cylinder with 4mm diameter and 2 mm height was bonded to porcelain. Specimens were stored in 37°C distilled water for 24 hours and subjected to 500 cycles. Shear bond strength was measured with an Instron machine and type of fracture was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Results were analyzed using 3 way ANOVA, Kaplan- Maier and Tukey HSD tests.

Results: Findings showed that PHA and APF roughened the porcelain surface without creating retentive micro undercuts but HF etches porcelain and creates retentive microundercuts. Ultradent silane had no significant effect on bond strength of porcelain- composite. Unfilled resin with Ultradent silane compared with dentin bonding with the same silane is more effective in bond strength of composite- porcelain.

Conclusion: Based on present study, application of Ultradent silane on sandblasted and etched porcelain with PHA or APF cannot be used as an alternative to this silane on sandblasted and etched porcelain with HF.

Background and Aims: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to dental porcelain on the basis of presence or absence of silane, type of acid [hydrofluoric acid (HF) or phosphoric acid (H3PO4)] and roughness of porcelain surface (glazed or deglazed) within mouth-like environment.
Materials and Methods: Eighty glazed ceramic disks were randomly divided into 8 groups of 10 disks: group 1 [HF+silane], group 2 [deglazed+HF+silane], group 3 [HF], group 4 [deglazed+HF], group 5 [H3PO4+silane], group 6 [deglazed+H3PO4+silane], group 7 [H3PO4], group 8 [deglazed+H3PO4]. Then the brackets were bonded and thermocycled. After that, shear bond strength test was done using the Zwick device and the type of bond failure was determined under stereomicroscope at 4X magnification. 3-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis were used for statistical analyses.
Results: The shear bond strength for the test groups were as follows: group (1):13.05±7.7 MPa , group (2):25.16±10.66 MPa, group (3):6.7±5.86 MPa, group (4):15.39±8.97 MPa, group (5):12.76±7.91 MPa, group (6):13.57±7.85 MPa, group (7):0.54±0.67 MPa, group (8): 9.34±6.52 MPa. The type of bond failure in all groups was adhesive failure except for group 2. No significant difference in the interaction between (glazed or deglazed), (presence or absence of silane), and type of acid was found (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Under the conditions of this study, the best clinical method was the use of 37% phosphoric acid and silane that resulted in the optimal clinical strength and adhesive bond failure.

  Background and Aims: Porcelain restorations are often ground for clinical adjustment and this removes the surface glaze layer and introduces flaws that can grow in wet environments due to stress-corrosion, reduce the strength of porcelain and limit restoration lifetime. The aim of this study was to introduce some surface treatment methods to control the flaws of ceramic restorations external surface and improve their strength.

  Materials and Methods: 40 feldspathic discs were prepared and divided into 4 groups (n=10): not indented (group 1) and others indented by vickers with 29.4 N and received different treatments: no treatment (group 2), polished (group 3) and polished-silane-resin (group 4). Biaxial flexural strength of discs was tested after water storage. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA .

  Results: The mean flexural strength of specimens in group 1 (134.49±12.60), 2 (94.81±15.41), 3 (89.20±16.22) and 4 (80.67±12.01) were measured. Group 1 (not indented) revealed significantly higher strength (P<0.001) than that of indented groups (2, 3 and 4) . There was no significant difference between group 2 (no treatment) and 3 or 4 (treated) and between treatment methods (3 and 4) (P=0.136).

  Conclusion: The strength of porcelains is dependent on presence of cracks. With the limitations of this study, none of the treatment methods could strengthen the cracked ceramic.