The influence of area/volume ratio on microstructure and non-Ohmic properties of SnO2-based varistor ceramic blocks

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Morphology and bacterial colonisation of tooth/ceramic restoration interface after different cement excess removal techniques

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of different protocols for resin cement removal during cementation on biofilm formation.Methods: Twenty-eight ceramic blocks, which were injected under pressure, were placed over enamel blocks obtained from freshly extracted bovine incisors. The ceramic blocks were cemented to the enamel blocks using a dual-cured resin cement and the excess resin was removed according to the experimental group: TS: Teflon spatula; BR: brush; BR+: brush and polishing; SB+: scalpel blade and polishing. After autoclaving, the samples were colonised by incubation in a sucrose broth suspension standardised with Streptococcus mutans in microaerophilic stove. Specimens were quantitatively analysed for bacterial adherence at the adhesive interface using confocal laser scanning microscopy and counting the colony forming units, and qualitatively analysed using SEM. The roughness (Ra/Rz/RSm) was also analysed. Data were analysed by 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%).Results: The roughness values ranged from 0.96 to 1.69 mu m for Ra (p > 0.05), from 11.59 to 22.80 mu m for Rz (p = 0.02 < 0.05) and from 293.2 to 534.3 mu m for RSm (p = 0.00). Bacterial adhesion varied between 1,974,000 and 2,814,000 CFU/ml (p = 0.00). Biofilm mean thickness ranged from 0.477 and 0.556 mu m (p > 0.05), whilst the biovolume values were between 0.388 and 0.547 mu m(3)/mu m(2) (p = 0.04). Lower values for roughness, bacterial adhesion, biofilm thickness and biovolume were found with BR, whilst TS presented the highest values for most of the parameters. SEM images confirmed the quantitative values.Conclusions: The restoration margin morphology and interface roughness affects bacterial accumulation. The brush technique promoted less bacterial colonisation at the adhesive interface than did the other removal methods.Clinical significance: The brush technique seems to be a good option for removing the excess resin cement after adhesive cementation in clinical practice, as indicated by its better results with lower bacterial colonisation. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Does the Ultrasonic Cleaning Medium Affect the Adhesion of Resin Cement to Feldspathic Ceramic?

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different cleaning media on the adhesion of resin cement to feldspathic ceramic after etching.Materials and Methods: The cementation surfaces of ceramic blocks (N = 20, n = 5 per group) were etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid (HF) gel for 20 s and rinsed for 60 s. They were then randomly assigned to 4 groups: G1: air-water spray+drying (control); G2: ultrasonic cleaning in distilled water for 4 min+drying; G3: ultrasonic cleaning in 99.5% acetone for 4 min+drying; G4: ultrasonic cleaning in 70% alcohol for 4 min+drying. The ceramic blocks were silanized and cemented (RelyX ARC) to the composite blocks. Subsequently, the microtensile bond strength test (mu TBS) was performed. In addition, EDS analysis was made to assess the elemental composition of the conditioned and cleaned ceramic surfaces.Results: A significantly higher mean mu TBS was obtained when specimens had been ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water (G2: 18.8 +/- 0.4 MPa) (p < 0.05) compared to other groups (G1: 16.6 +/- 0.5; G3: 16.1 +/- 0.9; G4: 15.8 +/- 1.4) (one-way ANOVA). EDS analysis indicated the presence of F- only in G1. Dissolved precipitates after HF etching were removed by ultrasonic cleaning.Conclusion: Cleaning the HF-etched ceramic surface ultrasonically in distilled water is recommended, instead of rinsing it with air-water spray only.

Durability of Microtensile Bond to Nonetched and Etched Feldspar Ceramic: Self-adhesive Resin Cements vs Conventional Resin

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of thermocycling (TC), self-adhesive resin cements and surface conditioning on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) between feldspathic ceramic blocks and resin cements.Materials and Methods: Fifty-six feldspathic ceramic blocks (10 x 7 x 5 mm) (Vita Mark II) were divided into groups according to the factors "resin cement" (3 cements) and "surface conditioning" (no conditioning or conditioning [10% hydrofluoric acid etching for 5 min + silanization]) (n = 8): group 1: conditioning+Variolink II (control group); group 2: no conditioning+Biscem; group 3: no conditioning+RelyX U100; group 4: no conditioning+Maxcem Elite; group 5: conditioning+Biscem; group 6: conditioning+RelyX U100; group 7: conditioning+Maxcem Elite. The ceramic-cement blocks were sectioned to produce non-trimmed bar specimens (adhered cross-sectional area: 1 +/- 0.1 mm(2)), which were divided into two storage conditions: dry, mu TBS immediately after cutting; TC (12,000x, 5 degrees C/55 degrees C). Statistical significance was deterimined using two-way ANOVA (7 strategies and 2 storage conditions) and the post-hoc Tukey test (p<0.05).Results: Resin cement and thermocycling affected the mu TBS significantly (p = 0.001). In the dry condition, group 5 (18 +/- 6.5 MPa) presented the lowest values of mu TBS when compared to the other groups. TC decreased the mean mu TBS values significantly (p<0.05) for all resin cements tested (9.7 +/- 2.3 to 22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa), except for the resin cement RelyX U100 (22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa). In groups 3 and 4, it was not possible to measure mu TBS, since these groups had 100% pre-test failures during sectioning. Moreover, the same occurred in group 2 after TC, where 100% failure was observed during thermocycling (spontaneous failures).Conclusion: Hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization of the feldspathic ceramic surface are essential for bonding self-adhesive resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used. Non-etched ceramic is not recommended.

Bond strength durability of a resin composite on a reinforced ceramic using various repair systems

Objectives. This study compared the durability of repair bond strength of a resin composite to a reinforced ceramic after three repair systems.Methods. Alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic blocks (Vitadur-alpha(R)) (N=30) were randomly divided into three groups according to the repair method: PR-Porcelain Repair Kit (Bisco) [etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid + silanization + adhesive]; CJ-CoJet Repair Kit (3M ESPE) [(chairside silica coating with 30 mu m SiO2 + silanization (ESPE(R)-Sil) + adhesive (Visio(TM)-Bond)]; CL-Clearfil Repair Kit [diamond surface roughening, etching with 40% H3PO4 + Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator + Clearfil SE Bond)]. Resin composite was photo-polymerized on each conditioned ceramic block. Non-trimmed beam specimens were produced for the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) tests. In order to study the hydrolytic durability of the repair methods, the beam specimens obtained from each block were randomly assigned to two conditions. Half of the specimens were tested either immediately after beam production (Dry) or after long-term water storage (37 degrees C, 150 days) followed by thermocyling (12,000 cycles, 5-55 degrees C) in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure types were analyzed under an optical microscope and SEM.Results. mu TBS results were significantly affected by the repair method (p=0.0001) and the aging conditions (p=0.0001) (two-way ANOVA, Tukey's test). In dry testing conditions, PR method showed significantly higher (p < 0.001) repair bond strength (19.8 +/- 3.8 MPa) than those of CJ and CL (12.4 +/- 4.7 and 9.9 +/- 2.9, respectively). After long-term water storage and thermocycling, CJ revealed significantly higher results (14.5 +/- 3.1 MPa) than those of PR (12.1 +/- 2.6 MPa) (p < 0.01) and CL (4.2 +/- 2.1 MPa) (p < 0.001). In all groups when tested in dry conditions, cohesive failure in the composite accompanied with adhesive failure at the interface (mixed failures), was frequently observed (76%, 80%, 65% for PR, CJ and CL, respectively). After aging conditions, while the specimens treated with PR and CJ presented primarily mixed failure types (52% and 87%, respectively), CL group presented mainly complete adhesive failures at the interface (70%).Significance. Hydrolytic stability of the repair method based on silica coating and silanization was superior to the other repair strategies for the ceramic tested. (C) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Influence of Y-TZP ceramic treatment and different resin cements on bond strength to dentin

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effect of Cement Shade and Light-curing Unit on Bond Strength of a Ceramic Cemented to Dentin

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of cement shade, light-curing unit, and water storage on tensile bond strength (a) of a feldspathic ceramic resin bonded to dentin.Materials and Methods: The dentin surface of 40 molars was exposed and etched with 37% phosphoric acid, then an adhesive system was applied. Forty blocks of feldspathic ceramic (Vita VM7) were produced. The ceramic surface was etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s, followed by the application of a silane agent and a dual-curing resin cement (Variolink II). Ceramic blocks were cemented to the treated dentin using either A3 or transparent (Tr) shade cement that was activated using either halogen or LED light for 40 s. All blocks were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 h before cutting to obtain non-trimmed bar-shaped specimens (adhesive area = 1 mm(2) +/- 0.1) for the microtensile bond strength test. The specimens were randomly grouped according to the storage time: no storage or stored for 150 days in 37 degrees C distilled water. Eight experimental groups were obtained (n = 30). The specimens were submitted to the tensile bond strength test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (alpha = 0.05).Results: The mean bond strength values were significantly lower for the corresponding water stored groups, except for the specimens using A3 resin cement activated by halogen light. There was no significance difference in mean bond strength values among all groups after water storage.Conclusion: Water storage had a detrimental effect under most experimental conditions. For both cement shades investigated (Tr and A3) under the same storage condition, the light-curing units (QTH and LED) did not affect the mean microtensile bond strengths of resin-cemented ceramic to dentin.

Effect of testing methods on the bond strength of resin to zirconia-alumina ceramic: microtensile versus shear test

This study tested the bond strength of a resin cement to a glass-infiltrated zirconia-alumina ceramic after three conditioning methods and using two test methods (shear-SBS versus microtensile-MTBS). Ceramic blocks for MTBS and ceramic disks for SBS were fabricated. Three surface conditioning (SC) methods were evaluated: (1) 110-mu m Al(2)O(3)+Silanization; (2) Chairside silica coating+silanization: (3) Laboratory silica coating+silanization. Following surface conditioning, the resin cement (Panavia F) was bonded to the conditioned ceramics. Although no statistically significant differences (p=0.1076) were seen between the test methods, results yielded with the different surface conditioning methods showed statistically significant differences (p<0.0001) (SC2=SC3>SC1.). As for the interaction between the factors, two-way ANOVA showed that it was not statistically significant (p=0.1443). MTBS test resulted in predominantly mixed failure (85%), but SBS test resulted in exclusively adhesive failure. on the effects of different surface conditioning methods, chairside and laboratory tribochemical silica coating followed by silanization showed higher bond strength results compared to those of aluminum oxide abrasion and silanization, independent of the test method employed.

Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic

Statement of problem. It is not clear how different glass ceramic surface pretreatments influence the bonding capacity of various luting agents to these surfaces.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of 3 resin cements to a lithia disilicate-based ceramic submitted to 2 surface conditioning treatments.Material and methods. Eighteen 5 X 6 X 8-mm ceramic (IPS Empress 2) blocks were fabricated according to manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Ceramic blocks were polished and divided into 2 groups (n=9/treatment): no conditioning (no-conditioning/control), or 5% hydrofluoric acid etching for 20 seconds and silanization for 1 minute (HF + SIL). Ceramic blocks were cemented to the composite resin blocks with I self-adhesive universal resin cement (RelyX Unicem) or 1 of 2 resin-based luting agents (Multilink or Panavia F), according to the manufacturer's instructions. The composite resin-ceramic blocks were stored in humidity at 37 degrees C for 7 days and serially sectioned to produce 25 beam specimens per group with a 1.0-mm(2) cross-sectional area. Specimens were thermal cycled (5000 cycles, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C) and tested in tension at 1 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons tests (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (X40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive.Results. The surface conditioning factor was significant (HF+SIL > no-conditioning) (P<.0001). Considering the unconditioned groups, the mu TBS of RelyX Unicem was significantly higher (9.6 +/- 1.9) than that of Multilink (6.2 +/- 1.2) and Panavia F (7.4 +/- 1.9). Previous etching and silanization yielded statistically higher mu TBS values for RelyX Unicem (18.8 +/- 3.5) and Multilink (17.4 +/- 3.0) when compared to Panavia F (15.7 +/- 3.8). Spontaneous debonding after thermal cycling was detected when luting agents were applied to untreated ceramic surfaces.Conclusion. Etching and silanization treatments appear to be crucial for resin bonding to a lithia disilicate-based ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used.

The effect of ceramic surface treatment on bonding to densely sintered alumina ceramic

Statement of problem. Ceramic surface treatment is crucial for bonding to resin. High crystalline ceramics are poorly conditioned using traditional procedures.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of silica coating on a densely sintered alumina ceramic relative to its bond strength to composite, using a resin luting agent.Material and methods. Blocks (6 X 6 X 5 mm) of ceramic and composite were made. The ceramic (Procera AllCeram) surfaces were polished, and the blocks were divided into 3 groups (n = 5): SB, airborne-particle abrasion with 110-mu m Al(2)O(3); RS, silica coating using Rocatec System; and CS, silica coating using CoJet System. The treated ceramic blocks were luted to the composite (W3D Master) blocks using a resin luting agent (Panavia F). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 7 days and then Cut in 2 axes, x and y, to obtain specimens with a bonding area of approximately 0.6 mm(2) (n = 30). The specimens were loaded to failure in tension in a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed using a randomized complete block design analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha=.05). Fractured surfaces were examined using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy to determine the type of failure. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy was used for surface compositional analysis.Results. Mean bond strength values (MPa) of Groups RS (17.1 +/- 3.9) (P = .00015) and CS (18.5 +/- 4.7) (P=.00012) were significantly higher than the values of Group SB (12.7 +/- 2.6). There was no statistical difference between Groups RS and CS. All failures occurred at the adhesive zone.Conclusion. Tribochemical silica coating systems increased the tensile bond strength values between Panavia F and Procera AllCeram ceramic.

Adhesive Quality of Self-adhesive and Conventional Adhesive Resin Cement to Y-TZP Ceramic Before and After Aging Conditions

Purpose: This study evaluated the adhesive quality of simplified self-adhesive and conventional resin cements to Y-TZP in dry and aged conditions. Methods: Y-TZP ceramic blocks (N=192) (5 x 5 x 2 mm) were embedded in acrylic resin and randomly divided into two groups, based on surface conditioning: 96% isopropanol or chairside tribochemical silica coating and silanization. Conditioned ceramics were divided into four groups to receive the resin cements (Panavia F 2.0, Variolink II, RelyX U100 and Maxcem). After 24 hours, half of the specimens (n=12) from each group were submitted to shear bond strength testing (0.5 nun/minute). The remaining specimens were tested after 90 days of water storage at 37 degrees C and thermocycling (12,000x, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C). Failure types were then assessed. The data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and the Tukey's test (alpha=0.05). Results: Significant effects of ceramic conditioning, cement type and storage conditions were observed (p<0.0001). The groups cleaned using alcohol only showed low bond strength values in dry conditions and the bond strength was reduced dramatically after aging. Groups conditioned using silica coating and silanization showed higher bond strengths both in dry and aged conditions. A high number of specimens failed prematurely prior to testing when they were cleaned using 96% isopropanol. Conclusion: Overall, silica coating and silanization showed higher, stable bond strengths with and without aging. The durability of resin-ceramic adhesion varied, depending on the adhesive cement type.

Effect of ceramic surface treatment on the microtensile bond strength between a resin cement and an alumina-based ceramic

Purpose: The objective of this study was to test the following hypothesis: the silica coating on ceramic surface increases the bond strength of resin cement to a ceramic. Materials and Methods: In-Ceram Alumina blocks were made and the ceramic surface was treated: G1 - sandblasting with 110-μm aluminum oxide particles; G2 - Rocatec System: tribochemicai silica coating (Rocatec-Pre powder + Rocatec-Plus powder + Rocatec-Sil); G3 - CoJet System: silica coating (CoJet-Sand) + ESPE-Sil. The ceramic blocks were cemented to composite blocks with Panavia F resin cement (under a load of 750 g/1 min). The cemented blocks were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days and sectioned along the x and y axes with a diamond disk. Samples with an adhesive area of ca 0.8 mm 2 (n = 45) were obtained. The samples were attached to an adapted device for the microtensile test, which was performed in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results: The obtained results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test. Mean values of tensile strength (MPa) and standard deviation values were: (G1) 16.8 ± 3.2; (G2) 30.6 ± 4.5; (G3) 33.0 ± 5.0. G2 and 63 presented greater tensile strength than G1. There was no significant difference between G2 and G3. All the failures took place at the ceramic/resin cement interface. Conclusion: The silica coating (Rocatec or CoJet systems) of the ceramic surface increased the bond strength between the Panavia F resin cement and alumina-based ceramic.

Effect of surface treatments on the resin bond to zirconium-based ceramic

Purpose: This study tested the hypothesis that the tribochemical silica coating on ceramic surfaces increases the bond strength of resin cement to a glass-infiltrated zirconium-based ceramic. Materials and Methods: Fifteen blocks of In-Ceram Zirconia from CEREC InLab (5 per group) and 15 composite blocks (Z-250) 5 mm x 5 mm x 4 mm were made. The ceramic surfaces were polished, and the blocks were divided into three groups: (1) airborne abrasion with 110-μm aluminum oxide particles; (2) Rocatec system, tribochemical silica coating; and (3) CoJet system, tribochemical silica coating. The ceramic blocks were cemented to the composite blocks using Panavia F according to the manufacturer's specifications. All samples were stored in 37°C distilled water for 7 days and later sectioned in two axes using a diamond disk under cooling to obtain specimens with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm2 (n = 45). Each specimen was then attached with cyanoacrylate glue to an adapted device for the microtensile test, which was carried out on a universal testing machine. Results: The results were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's test. Group 2 (23.0 ± 6.7 MPa) and group 3 (26.8 ± 7.4 MPa) showed greater bond strength than group 1 (15.1 ± 5.3 MPa). There was no significant difference between groups 2 and 3. All failures were in the adhesive zone. Conclusion: The hypothesis was confirmed - the tribochemical systems increased the bond strength between Panavia F and In-Ceram Zirconia.

Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a repair composite resin to a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Omega 900, VITA) submitted to two surface conditionings methods: 1) etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane application or 2) tribochemical silica coating. The null hypothesis is that both surface treatments can generate similar bond strengths. Ten ceramic blocks (6x6x6 mm) were fabricated and randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=5), according to the conditioning method: G1- 10% hydrofluoric acid application for 2 min plus rinsing and drying, followed by silane application for 30 s; G2- airborne particle abrasion with 30 μm silica oxide particles (CoJet-Sand) for 20 s using a chairside air-abrasion device (CoJet System), followed by silane application for 5 min. Single Bond adhesive system was applied to the surfaces and light cured (40 s). Z-250 composite resin was placed incrementally on the treated ceramic surface to build a 6x6x6 mm block. Bar specimens with an adhesive area of approximately 1 ± 0.1 mm2 were obtained from the composite-ceramic blocks (6 per block and 30 per group) for microtensile testing. No statistically significant difference was observed between G1 (10.19 ± 3.1 MPa) and G2 (10.17 ± 3.1 MPa) (p=0.982) (Student's t test; á = 0.05). The null hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. In conclusion, both surface conditioning methods provided similar microtensile bond strengths between the repair composite resin and the ceramic. Further studies using long-term aging procedures should be conducted.

A comparison of the film thickness of two adhesive luting agents and the effect of thermocycling on their microTBs to feldspathic ceramic.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of thermocycling (TC) on the microtensile bond strength (microTBS) of two luting agents to feldspathic ceramic and to measure their film thickness (FT). For the microTBS test, sixteen blocks (6.4 x 6.4 x 4.8 mm) were fabricated using a feldspathic ceramic, etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid, rinsed and treated with the silane agent. The ceramic blocks were divided into two groups (n= 8): Gr1: dual-cured resin cement and Gr2: flowable resin. The luting agents were applied on the treated surfaces. Microsticks (1 +/-0. 1mm2) were prepared and stored under two conditions: dry, specimens immediately submitted to the microTBS test, and TC (6,000 cycles; 5 degrees C-55 degrees C). The microTBS was evaluated using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The microTBS data (MPa) were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey' test (5%). For the FT test (ISO 4049), 0.05 ml of each luting agent (n=8) was pressed between two Mylar-covered glass plates (150 N) for 180 seconds and light polymerized. FT was measured using a digital paquimeter (Model 727-2001). The data (mm) were submitted to one-way ANOVA. The luting cement did not influence the microTBS results (p= 0.4467). Higher microtensile bond values were found after TC (20.5 +/- 8.6 MPa) compared to the dry condition (13.9 +/- 4. 7MPa), for both luting agents. The luting agents presented similar film thicknesses: Gr1- 0.052 +/- 0.016 mm; Gr2-0.041 +/- 0.003 mm. The luting agents presented similar film thickness and microTBS values, in dry and TC conditions and TC increased the bond strength regardless of the luting agent.