{"title":"整体氧化锆与两种不同制芯材料界面剪切结合强度的比较评估:体外研究。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
目的:该研究旨在评估和比较整体氧化锆与Zirconomer (Zr)核心构建材料(一种新型玻璃离子粘固剂)界面的剪切粘结强度(SBS),以及整体氧化锆与复合树脂核心构建材料界面的剪切粘结强度:材料与方法:体外对比研究:材料和方法:总共 32 个圆盘状的整体氧化锆样品和两种不同的核心增强材料:使用了氧化锆(16 个)和复合树脂(16 个)。使用氧化锆底漆和自粘性双固化水泥将两种材料粘合在一起,一种是带有锆核心增强材料的整体氧化锆,另一种是带有复合树脂核心增强材料的整体氧化锆。随后对样品进行热循环,并在其界面上测试 SBS。使用体视显微镜确定失效模式。对数据的评估采用了平均值、标准偏差、置信区间的描述性分析,以及用于组间比较的独立 t 检验:描述性分析、独立 t 检验、卡方检验:结果:单片氧化锆与 Zr 核心构建材料的平均 SBS(兆帕)(0.74)与单片氧化锆与复合树脂核心构建材料的平均 SBS(7.25)相比具有统计学意义(P ≤ 0.001)。氧化锆牙本质的粘接失败率为100%;复合树脂牙本质的内聚失败率为43.8%,混合失败率为31.2%,粘接失败率为25.0%:结论:在评估两种制芯材料与整体氧化锆的结合力时,锆和复合树脂制芯材料在统计学上有显著差异。虽然锆被证明是最佳的制芯材料,但还需要进一步研究,以确定它如何更有效地与整体氧化锆结合。
Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength at the interface of monolithic zirconia with two distinct core build-up materials: An in vitro study.
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.