M. Amaral, J. Rizzato, Victoria Caroline Souza de Almeida, Priscila-Christiane-Suzy Liporoni, R. Zanatta
{"title":"Bonding performance of universal adhesives with concomitant use of silanes to CAD/CAM blocks","authors":"M. Amaral, J. Rizzato, Victoria Caroline Souza de Almeida, Priscila-Christiane-Suzy Liporoni, R. Zanatta","doi":"10.1590/1981-86372023002020220004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: This study assessed whether the use of a silane coupling agent influence the bond strength of two universal adhesives to ceramic or resin CAD/CAM blocks. Methods: Forty-eight samples were obtained from each resin nano-ceramic hybrid block (RCBs) and lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (LD). Samples were treated with silane with MDP (Monobond - S-MDP), silane without MDP (Prosil - PS), and no silane application (Control - Ctr) followed by universal adhesive with silane (UAS) and without silane (UA) (n=8). Three polyurethane tubes (1.5 mm of internal diameter) were positioned in each sample treated surface and filled with a dual cured resin cement. Bond strength was assessed by microshear bond strength test and failure analysis was performed for all samples. Results: For the RCBs, UAS presented the highest bond strength values (p=0.004). Silane application was not significant in bond strength values (p=0.444). For LD, silane application was significant in bond strength values (p<0.001), but the adhesive was not (p=0.066). Failure analysis showed high prevalence of adhesive failures for both substrates. Conclusion: A silane-containing universal adhesive promoted the best bond strength results to the resin nano-ceramic hybrid block. For bonding to a glass-ceramic CAD/CAM material, additional silane (without MDP) application presented the best results.","PeriodicalId":30069,"journal":{"name":"RGO Revista Gaucha de Odontologia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RGO Revista Gaucha de Odontologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-86372023002020220004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: This study assessed whether the use of a silane coupling agent influence the bond strength of two universal adhesives to ceramic or resin CAD/CAM blocks. Methods: Forty-eight samples were obtained from each resin nano-ceramic hybrid block (RCBs) and lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (LD). Samples were treated with silane with MDP (Monobond - S-MDP), silane without MDP (Prosil - PS), and no silane application (Control - Ctr) followed by universal adhesive with silane (UAS) and without silane (UA) (n=8). Three polyurethane tubes (1.5 mm of internal diameter) were positioned in each sample treated surface and filled with a dual cured resin cement. Bond strength was assessed by microshear bond strength test and failure analysis was performed for all samples. Results: For the RCBs, UAS presented the highest bond strength values (p=0.004). Silane application was not significant in bond strength values (p=0.444). For LD, silane application was significant in bond strength values (p<0.001), but the adhesive was not (p=0.066). Failure analysis showed high prevalence of adhesive failures for both substrates. Conclusion: A silane-containing universal adhesive promoted the best bond strength results to the resin nano-ceramic hybrid block. For bonding to a glass-ceramic CAD/CAM material, additional silane (without MDP) application presented the best results.