Efeito da temperatura de secagem de dois tipos de silano e da supressão ou redução do tempo de condicionamento com ácido hidrofluorídrico na resistência de união entre uma cerâmica de dissilicato de lítio e um cimento resinoso

Este estudo avaliou o efeito de diferentes métodos de silanização e aplicação do ácido hidrofluorídrico (HF) sobre a resistência à microtração de uma cerâmica de dissilicato de lítio a um cimento resinoso. Quarenta blocos de IPS e.max Press /Ivoclar Vivadent (5x5x6mm) foram cimentados a blocos de resina Z250/3M ESPE (5x5x6mm) usando o cimento resinoso RelyX ARC/3M ESPE de acordo com os seguintes métodos de tratamento superficial: G1: 20s de ácido fluorídrico (HF) + silano não hidrolisado Primer-Activactor/Dentsply (SNH) seco à temperatura ambiente; G2: 20s HF + silano pré-hidrolisado RelyX Ceramic-Primer/3M ESPE (SPH) seco à temperatura ambiente; G3: 10s HF + SNH seco com ar quente (50oC-2min); G4: 10sHF + SPH seco com ar quente (50oC-2min); G5: sem ácido, SNH seco com ar quente (50oC-2min); G6: sem ácido, SPH seco com ar quente (50oC-2min); G7: sem ácido, SNH seco à temperatura ambiente; G8: sem ácido, SPH seco à temperatura ambiente. Antes de cada método de silanização, os blocos cerâmicos receberam acabamento com lixas de carbeto de silício (220-600) e limpeza com ácido fosfórico 37% (1min). A cimentação foi realizada com carga vertical de 1kg por 10min. Os conjuntos de cerâmica/cimento/resina foram armazenados em água destilada (37C) por 24 horas e depois seccionados em máquina de corte Isomet 1000 a fim de obter palitos (n = 40) de 1mm2 de área da seção transversal, que foram submetidos ao teste de microtração em máquina de ensaio universal Emic (v = 0,5mm/min). O modo de fratura foi avaliado em microscópio eletrônico de varredura. A análise estatística foi realizada utilizando ANOVA / Dunnett (p-valor = 0,000). As médias MPa e desvio padrão foram: G1-21,5 (8,9) BC; G2-30,5 (7,2) A; G3-19.4 (9.1) BC; G4-24,0 (9,0) B; G5-8.1 (3.2) D; G6 -18,0 (6,2) C; G7-7.8 (2,6) D; G8-6.3 (2,5) D. Grupos 2, 3, 4 e 6 não tiveram falhas prematuras dos palitos contra os grupos 1, 5, 7 e 8, que apresentaram 2,2; 44,4; 75,6 e 33,3% de perdas prematuras, respectivamente. O teste de correlação foi realizado apresentando significância estatística, com valor de -0,736 (p-valor = 0,000), mostrando que, a medida que o percentual de perda prematura aumenta, a média da MPa diminui. Quanto ao modo de fratura, observou-se 44,97% de falhas do tipo mista, 51,70% de falhas do tipo adesiva, 3,33% de falhas do tipo coesiva do cimento. Quando é realizada a supressão do condicionamento com HF como pré-tratamento da superfície cerâmica IPS e.max Press, a aplicação de silano SPH, associada ao seu tratamento térmico, deve ser o método de silanização recomendado, embora os valores mais elevados de resistência de união tenham sido os obtidos quando utilizado o condicionamento com HF por 20s. Quando é realizada a redução do tempo de condicionamento com HF para 10s, a aplicação do silano (SPH ou SNH) deve ser sempre associada ao seu tratamento térmico. O SNH só deve ser usado se as superfícies das cerâmicas IPS e.max Press forem tratadas com HF.

Resistência de união entre cimentos resinosos autoadesivos e cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a resistência de união a microtração de cimentos resinosos autoadesivos a cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina. Dezoito blocos cerâmicos de zircônia 3Y-TZP (9 LAVA e 9 LAVA Plus) foram jateados com partículas de 50 m de Al2O3por 20 s com pressão de 28 psi a uma distância de 10 mm. Os blocos cerâmicos foram duplicados em resina composta (Point 4, Kerr) por moldagem com silicone. Os blocos de resina composta foram cimentados à superfície jateada da zircônia usando três diferentes cimentos resinosos autoadesivos: (1) RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE); (2) SmartCem 2 (Dentsply); (3) Speedcem (Ivoclar Vivadent). Após 24 h imersos em água destilada a 37oC, os blocos cimentados foram cortados em palitos para testes de microtração,com área da interface adesiva de 1 mm2 0,2 mm, e tensionados até a fratura. Os resultados foram analisados pelo teste de análise de variância de dois fatores e pelo teste de comparações múltiplas LSD (α=0.05). As amostras fraturadas foram analisadas com microscopia eletrônica de varredura (MEV) e o modo de falha foi registrado. A topografia das superfícies cerâmicas antes e após o jateamento foi comparada por microscopia de força atômica (AFM). A resistência de união do cimento Speedcem à zircônia foi estatisticamente superior àquela reportada pelos cimentos RelyX Unicem 2 e SmartCem 2, independentemente da cerâmica usada (p<0,05). O fator cerâmica não teve influência estatística na resistência de união. A interação entre os dois fatores se mostrou significativa (p<0,05). O modo de fratura associado ao SmartCem 2 foi quase exclusivamente adesiva, enquanto oRelyX Unicem 2e o Speedcem exibiram um maior percentual de falhas mistas. Não foram observadas falhas coesivas. O AFM não revelou diferença no padrão de topografia de superfície entre as duas cerâmicas antes ou após o jateamento. Concluiu-se que o cimento Speedcem foi superior na adesão a cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina.

Bond strength of adhesive restorations to Er : YAG laser-treated dentin

Background and Objective: evaluate the adhesion of adhesive restorations with and without a base of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to dentin irradiated with Er:YAG laser.Study Design/Materials and Methods: Twenty-four human molar teeth were divided into 6 groups (n=4): G1) 37% Phosphoric acid (PA) + Adhesive system (Ad) + Composite resin (CR); G2) RMGIC + CR; G3) Laser (60mJ-5Hz-20s) + PA + Ad + CR; G4) Laser (60 mJ-5 Hz-20 s) + RMGIC + CR; G5) Laser (100mJ-5Hz-20s) + PA + Ad + CR; G6) Laser (100mJ-5Hz-20s) + RMGIC + CR. Teeth were prepared, restored and cut into specimens, according to the treatment proposed and to methodology for microtensile test. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey statistical tests (alpha=5%).Results:. The mean values for adhesion (MPa) and standard deviation (+/- SD) were: G1) 26.30(+/- 4.50), G2) 5.34(+/- 2.87), G3) 21.16(+/- 6.01), G4) 5.22(+/- 1.52), G5) 22.23(+/- 4.98), G6) 5.25(+/- 3.08).Conclusion: the use of Er:YAG laser did not influence on the restorations adhesion.

Does Adhesive Resin Application Contribute to Resin Bond Durability on Etched and Silanized Feldspathic Ceramic?

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Bond Strength of Two Resin Cements on Dentin Using Different Cementation Strategies

Purpose:This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength of two resin cements to dentin either with their corresponding self-etching adhesives or employing the three-step etch-and-rinse technique. The null hypothesis was that the etch-and-rinse adhesive system would generate higher bond strengths than the self-etching adhesives.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two human molars were randomly divided into four groups (N = 32, n = 8/per group): G1) ED Primer self-etching adhesive + Panavia F; G2) All-Bond 2 etch-and-rinse adhesive + Panavia F; G3) Multilink primer A/B self-etching adhesive + Multilink resin cement; G4) All-Bond 2 + Multilink. After cementation of composite resin blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm), the specimens were stored in water (37 degrees C, 24 hours), and sectioned to obtain beams (+/- 1 mm2 of adhesive area) to be submitted to microtensile test. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results:Although the cement type did not significantly affect the results (p = 0.35), a significant effect of the adhesive system (p = 0.0001) was found on the bond strength results. Interaction terms were not significant (p = 0.88751). The etch-and-rinse adhesive provided significantly higher bond strength values (MPa) with both resin cements (G2: 34.4 +/- 10.6; G4: 33.0 +/- 8.9) compared to the self-etching adhesive systems (G1: 19.8 +/- 6.6; G3: 17.8 +/- 7.2) (p < 0.0001). Pretest failures were more frequent in the groups where self-etching systems were used.Conclusion:Although the cement type did not affect the results, there was a significant effect of changing the bonding strategy. The use of the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive resulted in significantly higher bond strength for both resin cements on dentin.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEDual polymerized resin cements tested could deliver higher bond strength to dentin in combination with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems as opposed to their use in combination with self-etching adhesives.(J Esthet Restor Dent 22:262-269, 2010).

Adhesives with different pHs: Effect on the MTBS of chemically activated and light-activated composites to human dentin

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength between human dentin and composites, using two light-activated single-bottle total-etch adhesive systems with different pHs combined with chemically activated and light-activated-composites. The tested hypothesis was that the dentin bond strength is not influenced by an adhesive system of low pH, combined with chemically activated or light-activated composites. Material and Method: Flat dentin surfaces of twenty-eight human third molars were allocated in 4 groups (n=7), depending on the adhesive system: (One Step Plus-OS and Prime & Bond NT-PB) and composite (light-activated Filtek Z-100 [Z100] and chemically activated Bisfil 2B [B2B]). Each adhesive system was applied on acid-etched dentin and then one of the composites was added to form a 5 mm-high resin block. The specimens were stored in tap water (37 degrees C/24 h) and sectioned into two axes, x and y. This was done with a diamond disk under coolant irrigation to obtain beams with a cross-section area of approximately 0.8 mm(2). Each specimen was then attached to a custom-made device and submitted to the microtensile test (1 mm.min(-1)). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05). Results: the anticipated hypothesis was not confirmed (p<0.0001). The bond strengths (MPa) were not statistically different between the two adhesive systems when light-activated composite was used (OS+Z100 = 24.7 +/- 7.1(a); PB+Z100 = 23.8 +/- 5.7(a)). However, with use of the chemically activated composite (B2B), PB (7.8 +/- 3.6(b) MPa) showed significantly lower dentin bond strengths than OS (32.2 +/- 7.6(a)). Conclusion: the low pH of the adhesive system can affect the bond of chemically activated composite to dentin. on the other hand, under the present conditions, the low pH did not seem to affect the bond of light-activated composites to dentin significantly.

Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics

Objectives. This study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and microtensile (MTBS) testing methodologies for core and veneering ceramics in four types of all-ceramic systems.Methods. Four different ceramic veneer/core combinations, three of which were feldspathic and the other a fluor-apatite to their respectively corresponding cores, namely leucitereinforced ceramic ((IPS)Empress, Ivoclar), low leucite-reinforced ceramic (Finesse, Ceramco), glass-infiltrated alumina (In-Ceram Alumina, Vita) and lithium disilicate ((IPS)Empress 2, Ivoclar) were used for SBS and MTBS tests. Ceramic cores (N = 40, n = 10/group for SBS test method, N=5blocks/group for MTBS test method) were fabricated according to the manufacturers' instructions (for SBS: thickness, 3 mm; diameter, 5 mm and for MTBS: 10 mm x 10 mm x 2 mm) and ultrasonically cleaned. The veneering ceramics (thickness: 2 mm) were vibrated and condensed in stainless steel moulds and fired onto the core ceramic materials. After trying the specimens in the mould for minor adjustments, they were again ultrasonically cleaned and embedded in PMMA. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 1 week and bond strength tests were performed in universal testing machines (cross-head speed: 1mm/min). The bond strengths (MPa +/- S.D.) and modes of failures were recorded.Results. Significant difference between the two test methods and all-ceramic types were observed (P < 0.05) (2-way ANOVA, Tukey's test and Bonferroni). The mean SBS values for veneering ceramic to lithium disilicate was significantly higher (41 +/- 8 MPa) than those to low leucite (28 +/- 4 MPa), glass-infiltrated (26 +/- 4 MPa) and leucite-reinforced (23 +/- 3 MPa) ceramics, while the mean MTBS for low leucite ceramic was significantly higher (15 +/- 2 MPa) than those of leucite (12 +/- 2 MPa), glass-infiltrated (9 +/- 1 MPa) and lithium disilicate ceramic (9 +/- 1 MPa) (ANOVA, P < 0.05).Significance. Both the testing methodology and the differences in chemical compositions of the core and veneering ceramics influenced the bond strength between the core and veneering ceramic in bilayered all-ceramic systems. (c) 2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: The effect of surface conditioning

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to three high-strength core ceramics: high alumina-based (In-Ceram Alumina, Procera AllCeram) and zirconia-reinforced alumina-based (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramics. Materials and Methods: Ten blocks (5 ×6 × 8 mm) of In-Ceram Alumina (AL), In-Ceram Zirconia (ZR), and Procera (PR) ceramics were fabricated according to each manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in composite. The specimens were assigned to one of the two following treatment conditions: (1) airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 particles + silanization, (2) silica coating with 30 μm SiOx particles (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silanization. Each ceramic block was duplicated in composite resin (W3D-Master, Wilcos, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) using a mold made out of silicon impression material. Composite resin layers were incrementally condensed into the mold to fill up the mold and each layer was light polymerized for 40 s. The composite blocks were bonded to the surface-conditioned ceramic blocks using a resin cement system (Panavia F, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan). One composite resin block was fabricated for each ceramic block. The ceramic-composite was stored at 37°C in distilled water for 7 days prior to bond tests. The blocks were cut under water cooling to produce bar specimens (n = 30) with a bonding area of approximately 0.6 mm2. The bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). Bond strength values were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (≤ 0.05). Results: Silica coating with silanization increased the bond strength significantly for all three high-strength ceramics (18.5 to 31.2 MPa) compared to that of airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 (12.7-17.3 MPa) (ANOVA, p < 0.05). PR exhibited the lowest bond strengths after both Al2O3 and silica coating (12.7 and 18.5 MPa, respectively). Conclusion: Conditioning the high-strength ceramic surfaces with silica coating and silanization provided higher bond strengths of the resin cement than with airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 and silanization.

Bond strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface conditioning methods before and after thermocycling

This study aimed to evaluate the durability of adhesion between acrylic teeth and denture base acrylic resin. The base surfaces of 24 acrylic teeth were flatted and submitted to 4 surface treatment methods: SM1 (control): No SM; SM2: application of a methyl methacrylate-based bonding agent (Vitacol); SM3: air abrasion with 30-μm silicone oxide plus silane; SM4: SM3 plus SM2. A heat-polymerized acrylic resin was applied to the teeth. Thereafter, bar specimens were produced for the microtensile test at dry and thermocyled conditions (60 days water storage followed by 12,000 cycles). The results showed that bond strength was significantly affected by the SM (P < .0001) (SM4 = SM2 > SM3 > SM1) and storage regimens (P < .0001) (dry > thermocycled). The methyl methacrylate-based adhesive showed the highest bond strength.

Bond strength durability of direct and indirect composite systems following surface conditioning for repair

Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of surface conditioning methods and thermocycling on the bond strength between a resin composite and an indirect composite system in order to test the repair bond strength. Materials and Methods: Eighteen blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm) of indirect resin composite (Sinfony) were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following two treatment conditions (9 blocks per treatment): (1) 10% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s (Dentsply) + silanization, (2) silica coating with 30-Ìm SiOx particles (CoJet) + silanization. After surface conditioning, the bonding agent was applied (Adper Single Bond) and light polymerized. The composite resin (W3D Master) was condensed and polymerized incrementally to form a block. Following storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, the indirect composite/resin blocks were sectioned in two axes (x and y) with a diamond disk under coolant irrigation to obtain nontrimmed specimens (sticks) with approximately 0.6 mm2 of bonding area. Twelve specimens were obtained per block (N = 216, n = 108 sticks). The specimens from each repaired block were again randomly divided into 2 groups and tested either after storage in water for 24 h or thermocycling (6000 cycles, 5°C to 55°C). The microtensile bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). The mean bond strengths of the specimens of each block were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Results: Both surface conditioning (p = 0.0001) and storage conditions (p = 0.0001) had a significant effect on the results. After 24 h water storage, silica coating and silanization (method 2) showed significantly higher bond strength results (46.4 ± 13.8 MPa) than that of hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization (method 1) (35.8 ± 9.7 MPa) (p < 0.001). After thermocycling, no significant difference was found between the mean bond strengths obtained with method 1 (34.1 ± 8.9 MPa) and method 2 (31.9 ± 7.9 MPa) (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Although after 24 h of testing, silica coating and silanization performed significantly better in resin-resin repair bond strength, both HF acid gel and silica coating followed by silanization revealed comparable bond strength results after thermocycling for 6000 times.

Bond strength of adhesive systems with different solvents to dry and wet dentin

Aim: This study evaluates bond strength between dentin and composite using adhesives with different solvents to dry and wet dentin. Materials and methods: Ninety bovine incisors were used; the vestibular surfaces were worn by the exposure of an area with a diameter of 4 mm of dentin. The specimens were divided into 6 groups, according to the type of adhesive used and hydratation stals: Group SB-wet: Single Bond 2 in wet dentin, Group SBdry: Single Bond 2 in dry dentin, Group SL-wet: Solobond M in wet dentin, Group SL-dry: Solobond M in dentin dry. Group XPwet: XP Bond in wet dentin, Group XP-dry: XP Bond in dentin dry. They were cut to obtain specimens in the shape of stick with 1 × 1 mm and subjected to microtensile test in universal testing machine with a cross speed of 1mm/min. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (5%). Results: ANOVA showed significant differences for surface treatment and interaction, but no difference was found for adhesive factor. The Tukey's test showed that the samples with wet dentin shown higher values of bond strength. Conclusion: The adhesive did not influence in the bond strength. The groups with wet dentin showed higher values of bond strength than groups with dry dentin.

Influence of CVD diamond tips and Er:YAG laser irradiation on bonding of different adhesive systems to dentin

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength of three adhesive systems, using different methods of dentin preparation. Materials and methods: A hundred and eight bovine teeth were used. The dentin from buccal face was exposed and prepared with three different methods, divided in 3 groups: Group 1 (DT)- diamond tip on a high-speed handpiece; Group 2 (CVD)-CVD tip on a ultrasonic handpiece; Group 3 (LA)-Er: YAG laser. The teeth were divided into 3 subgroups, according adhesive systems used: Subgroup 1-Adper Single Bond Plus/3M ESPE (SB) total-etch adhesive; Subgroup 2-Adper Scotchbond SE/3M ESPE (AS) selfetching adhesive; Subgroup 3-Clearfil SE Bond/Kuraray (CS) selfetching adhesive. Blocks of composite (Filtek Z250-3M ESPE) 4 mm high were built up and specimens were stored in deionized water for 24 hours at 37°C. Serial mesiodistal and buccolingual cuts were made and stick-like specimens were obtained, with transversal section of 1.0 mm2. The samples were submitted to microtensile test at 1 mm/min and load of 10 kg in a universal testing machine. Data (MPa) were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05). Results and conclusion: Surface treatment with Diamond or CVD tips associated with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive produced significantly lower bond strength values compared to other groups. Surface treatment with Er: YAG laser associated with Single Bond Plus or Clearfil SE Bond adhesives and surface treatment with CVD tip associated with Adper Scotchbond SE adhesive produced significantly lower bond strength values compared to surface treatment with diamond or CVD tips associated with Single Bond Plus or Adper Scotchbond SE adhesives. Clinical significance: Interactions between laser and the CVD tip technologies and the different adhesive systems can produce a satisfactory bonding strength result, so that these associations may be beneficial and enhance the clinical outcomes.

Durability of Adhesion between Feldspathic Ceramic and Resin Cements: Effect of Adhesive Resin, Polymerization Mode of Resin Cement, and Aging

Purpose: Adhesive cementation is an important step for restorations made of feldspathic ceramic as it increases the strength of such materials. Incorrect selection of the adhesive resin and the resin cement to adhere to the ceramic surface and their durability against aging can affect the adhesion between these materials and the clinical performance. This study evaluated the effect of adhesive resins with different pHs, resin cements with different polymerization modes, and aging on the bond strength to feldspathic ceramic. Materials and Methods: One surface of feldspathic ceramic blocks (VM7) (N = 90) (6.4 × 6.4 × 4.8 mm3) was conditioned with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds, washed/dried, and silanized. Three adhesive resins (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus [SBMP], pH: 5.6; Single Bond [SB], pH: 3.4; and Prime&Bond NT [NT], pH: 1.7) were applied on the ceramic surfaces (n = 30 per adhesive). For each adhesive group, three resin cements with different polymerization modes were applied (n = 10 per cement): photo-polymerized (Variolink II base), dual polymerized (Variolink II base + catalyst), and chemically polymerized (C&B). The bonded ceramic blocks were stored in water (37°C) for 24 hours and sectioned to produce beam specimens (cross-sectional bonded area: 1 ± 0.1 mm2). The beams of each block were randomly divided into two conditions: Dry, microtensile test immediately after cutting; TC, test was performed after thermocycling (12,000×, 5°C to 55°C) and water storage at 37°C for 150 days. Considering the three factors of the study (adhesive [3 levels], resin cement [3 levels], aging [2 levels]), 18 groups were studied. The microtensile bond strength data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α= 0.05). Results: Adhesive resin type (p < 0.001) and the resin cement affected the mean bond strength (p= 0.0003) (3-way ANOVA). The NT adhesive associated with the chemically polymerized resin cement in both dry (8.8 ± 6.8 MPa) and aged conditions (6.9 ± 5.9 MPa) presented statistically lower bond strength results, while the SBMP adhesive resin, regardless of the resin cement type, presented the highest results (15.4 to 18.5 and 14.3 to 18.9 MPa) in both dry and aged conditions, respectively (Tukey's test). Conclusion: Application of a low-pH adhesive resin onto a hydrofluoric acid etched and silanized feldspathic ceramic surface in combination with chemically polymerized resin cement did not deliver favorable results. The use of adhesive resin with high pH could be clinically advised for the photo-, dual-, and chemically polymerized resin cements tested. © 2012 by the American College of Prosthodontists.

Influência in vitro da clorexidina e do chá verde na longevidade de união adesiva resina composta – dentina

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)