{"title":"Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength at the interface of monolithic zirconia with two distinct core build-up materials: An <i>in vitro</i> study.","authors":"Parmar Aditi, Sonal Mehta, Ruchi Raj","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_1_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The study aimed to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) at the interface of monolithic zirconia with zirconomer (Zr) core build-up, a new type of glass ionomer cement to monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up material.</p><p><strong>Setting and design: </strong>In vitro a comparative study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 32 disk-shaped samples of monolithic zirconia and two distinct core build-up materials: Zr (n = 16) and composite resin (n = 16) were used. The two components, monolithic zirconia with Zr core build-up and monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up, were bonded using zirconia primer and self-adhesive, dual-cure cement. The samples were subsequently thermocycled, and the SBS was tested at their interfaces. The failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope. Data were evaluated using the descriptive analysis for mean, standard deviation, confidence interval, and independent t-test for intergroup comparison.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Descriptive analysis, independent t-test, Chi-square test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean SBS (megapascals) of monolithic zirconia to Zr core build-up (0.74) was statistically significant when compared to monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up material (7.25) (P ≤ 0.001). Zirconomer core build-up showed 100% adhesive failure; composite resin core build-up had 43.8% cohesive, 31.2% mixed, and 25.0% adhesive failures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When evaluating the two core build-up materials' bindings to monolithic zirconia, Zr and composite resin core build-up showed statistically significant differences. Although Zr has been demonstrated to be the optimal core build-up material; however, additional investigation is required to determine how it bonds to monolithic zirconia more effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"23 2","pages":"178-183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_1_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) at the interface of monolithic zirconia with zirconomer (Zr) core build-up, a new type of glass ionomer cement to monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up material.
Setting and design: In vitro a comparative study.
Materials and methods: A total of 32 disk-shaped samples of monolithic zirconia and two distinct core build-up materials: Zr (n = 16) and composite resin (n = 16) were used. The two components, monolithic zirconia with Zr core build-up and monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up, were bonded using zirconia primer and self-adhesive, dual-cure cement. The samples were subsequently thermocycled, and the SBS was tested at their interfaces. The failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope. Data were evaluated using the descriptive analysis for mean, standard deviation, confidence interval, and independent t-test for intergroup comparison.
Results: The mean SBS (megapascals) of monolithic zirconia to Zr core build-up (0.74) was statistically significant when compared to monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up material (7.25) (P ≤ 0.001). Zirconomer core build-up showed 100% adhesive failure; composite resin core build-up had 43.8% cohesive, 31.2% mixed, and 25.0% adhesive failures.
Conclusion: When evaluating the two core build-up materials' bindings to monolithic zirconia, Zr and composite resin core build-up showed statistically significant differences. Although Zr has been demonstrated to be the optimal core build-up material; however, additional investigation is required to determine how it bonds to monolithic zirconia more effectively.