963 resultados para Bond strength (materials)
Resumo:
This study evaluated three surface treatments and their effects on the shear bond strength between a resin cement and one of three ceramics. The ceramic surfaces were evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM ) as well. Specimens were treated with 50 μm aluminum oxide airborne particles, 10% hydrofluoric acid etching, or a combination of the two. Using a matrix with a center hole (5.0 mm × 3.0 mm), the ceramic bonding areas were filled with resin cement following treatment. The specimens were submitted to thermal cycling (1,000 cycles) and the shear bond strength was tested (0.5 mm/minute). The failure mode and the effect of surface treatment were analyzed under SEM . Data were submitted to ANOVA and a Tukey test (α = 0.05). Duceram Plus and IPS Empress 2 composite specimens produced similar shear bond strength results (p > 0.05), regardless of the treatment method used. Hydrofluoric acid decreased the shear bond strength of In-Ceram Alumina specimens. For all materials, surface treatments changed the morphological surface. All treatments influenced the shear bond strength and failure mode of the ceramic/resin cement composites.
Resumo:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the hybrid layer thickness, resin tag length and resin bond strength of a self-etching adhesive system to sound dentin tissue in vivo. After performing restorative procedures and tooth extractions, ten specimens were sectioned in a mesiodistal direction. One dental section was used for light microscope analysis, in which both the resin tag length and hybrid layer thickness were measured, while the other section was analyzed using a microtensile test (0.5 mm/min). The fractured surface of the latter section was characterized using a stereoscopic magnifying glass (40x magnifcation). The results were subject to statistical analysis using the Pearson Correlation Test (a = 0.05). The hybrid layer thickness, resin tag length and resin bond strength mean values were 2.19 microm (0.34), 4.34 microm (0.28) and 9.73 MPa (5,55), respectively. In addition, correlation tests between the resin tag length and the resin bond strength (r=0.014) and also between the hybrid layer thickness and bond strength (r=0.43), showed no statistically significant correlation. The microtensile bond strength of Adper Prompt L Pop self-etching adhesive system does not depend on hybrid layer thickness or resin tag length.
Resumo:
Objective: To evaluate the effects of simulated aging in bond strength and nanoleakage of class II restorations using three different restorative techniques. Materials and methods: Class II preparations (n = 12) were restored using: FS - composite resin Filtek Supreme Plus (3M/ESPE); RMGIC + FS - resin-modified glass ionomer cement Vitrebond Plus (3M/ESPE) + FS; and FFS + FS - flowable composite resin Filtek Supreme Plus Flowable (3M ESPE) + FS. The teeth were assigned into two groups: Control and Simulated Aging - Thermal/Mechanical cycling (3,000 cycles, 20-80 °C/500,000 cycles, 50 N). From each tooth, two slabs were assessed to microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) (MPa), and two slabs were prepared for nanoleakage assessment, calculated as penetration along the restoration margin considering the penetration length (%) and as the area of silver nitrate particle deposition (μm2). Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0. 05). Results: FS presented the highest μTBS to dentin (22. 39 ± 7. 55 MPa) after simulated aging, while the presence of flowable resin significantly decreased μTBS (14. 53 ± 11. 65 MPa) when compared to no aging condition. Both control and aging groups of RMGIC + FS presented the highest values of silver nitrate penetration (89. 90 ± 16. 31 % and 97. 14 ± 5. 76 %) and deposition area (33. 05 ± 12. 49 and 28. 08 ± 9. 76 μm2). Nanoleakage was not affected by simulated aging. Conclusions: FS presented higher bond strength and lower nanoleakage and was not affected by simulated aging. Use of flowable resin compromised the bond strength after simulated aging. Clinical relevance: The use of an intermediate layer did not improve the dentin bond strength neither reduced nanoleakage at the gingival margins of class II restorations under simulated aging conditions. © 2012 Springer-Verlag.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Objectives: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of non-aged and aged resin-based composites (RBC) (nanohybrid and nanofilled) after two surface conditioning methods, repaired using the composite of the same kind or a microhybrid composite. Materials and methods: Nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram-TE) and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme-FS) RBC blocks (5 × 5 × 6 mm) (N = 128) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups: (a) no ageing (control group) and (b) ageing (5.000 thermocycling, 5-55 °C). RBC surfaces were polished by up to 1,200-grit silicone carbide papers and conditioned with either (a) air abrasion with 30-μm SiO2 particles (CoJet Sand) for 4 s + silane coupling agent (ESPE-Sil) + adhesive resin (VisioBond) (n = 16) or (b) adhesive application only (Multilink A+B for TE; Adper ScotchBond 1XT for FS) (n = 16). In half of the groups, repair resin of the same kind with the RBC and, in the other half, a different kind of composite (microhybrid, Quadrant Anterior Shine-AS) with its corresponding adhesive (Quadrant UniBond) was used. The specimens were submitted to MTBS test (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Degree of conversion (DC) of non-aged and aged resin composites (TE, FS) (n = 3 per group) was measured by micro-Raman analyses. Results: RBC type (p = 0.001) and ageing affected the MTBS results significantly (p = 0.001). Surface conditioning type did not show significant difference (p = 0.726), but less number of pre-test failures was experienced with the CoJet system compared to adhesive resin application only. Repair strength on aged TE showed significantly less (p < 0.05) MTBS than for FS. FS repaired with the same kind of RBC and adhesive resin presented the highest cohesive failures (43 %). DC was higher for TE (71 %) than for FS (58 %) before ageing. Conclusion: On the aged RBCs, less favourable repair strength could be expected especially for nanohybrid composite. For repair actions, RBC surface conditioning could be accomplished with either adhesive resin application only or with CoJet system, providing that the latter resulted in less pre-test failures. Clinical relevance: Clinicians could condition the resin surface prior to repair or relayering with either CoJet system or adhesive resin application only, depending on the availability of the system. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Resumo:
Purpose: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of two cements to two Y-TZP ceramics subjected to different surface treatments.Materials and Methods: Zirconia specimens were made from Lava (n = 36) and IPS e.max ZirCAD (n = 36), and their surfaces were treated as follows: no treatment (control), silica coating with 30-mu m silica-modified alumina (Al2O3) particles (CoJet Sand), or coating with liners Lava Ceram for Lava and Intensive ZirLiner for IPS e.max ZirCAD. Composite resin cylinders were bonded to zirconia with Panavia F or RelyX Unicem resin cements. All specimens were thermocycled (6000 cycles at 5 degrees C/55 degrees C) and subjected to SBS testing. Data were analyzed by post-hoc test Tamhane T2 and Scheffe tests (alpha = 0.05). Failure mode was analyzed by stereomicroscope and SEM.Results: With both zirconia brands, CoJet Sand showed significantly higher SBS values than control groups only when used with RelyX Unicem (p = 0.0001). Surface treatment with liners gave higher SBS than control groups with both ceramic brands and cements (p < 0.001). With both zirconia brands, the highest SBS values were obtained with the CoJet and RelyX Unicem combination (> 13.47 MPa). Panavia F cement showed significantly better results when coupled with liner surface treatment rather than with CoJet (p = 0.0001, SBS > 12.23 MPa). In untreated controls, Panavia F showed higher bond strength than RelyX Unicem; the difference was significant (p = 0.016) in IPS e.max ZirCAD. The nontreated specimens and those treated with CoJet Sand exhibited a high percentage of adhesive and mixed A (primarily adhesive) failures, while the specimens treated with liners presented an increase in mixed A and mixed C (primarily cohesive) failures as well as some cohesive failure in the bulk of Lava Ceram for both cements.Conclusion: CoJet Sand and liner application effectively improved the SBS between zirconia and luting cements. This study suggests that different interactions between surface treatments and luting cements yield different SBS: in clinical practice, these interactions should be considered when combining luting cements with surface treatments in order to obtain the maximum bond strength to zirconia restorations.
Resumo:
Purpose: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of ceramic cemented to dentin varying the resin cement and ceramic shades.Materials and Methods: Two VITA VM7 ceramic shades (Base Dentine 0M1 and Base Dentine 5M3) were used. A spectrophotometer was used to determine the percentage translucency of ceramic (thickness: 2.5 mm). For the MTBS test, 80 molar dentin surfaces were etched and an adhesive was applied. Forty blocks (7.2 x 7.2 x 2.5 mm) of each ceramic shade were produced and the ceramic surface was etched (10% hydrofluoric acid) for 60 s, followed by the application of silane and resin cement (A3 yellow and transparent). The blocks were cemented to dentin using either A3 or transparent cement. Specimens were photoactivated for 20 s or 40 s, stored in distilled water (37 degrees C/24 h), and sectioned. Eight experimental groups were obtained (n = 10). Specimens were tested for MTSB using a universal testing machine. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (alpha <= 0.05).Results: The percentage translucency of 0M1 and 5M3 ceramics were 10.06 (+/- 0.25)% and 1.34 (+/- 0.02)%, respectively. The lowest MTBS was observed for the ceramic shade 5M3. For the 0M1 ceramic, the A3 yellow cement that was photocured for 20 s exhibited the lowest MTBS, while the transparent cement that was photocured for 40 s presented the highest MTBS.Conclusions: For the 2.5-mm-thick 5M3 ceramic restorations, the MTBS of ceramic cemented to dentin significantly increased. The dual-curing cement Variolink II photocured for 40 s is not recommended for cementing the Base Dentine 5M3 feldspathic ceramic to dentin.
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning protocols on the repair strength of resin composite to the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex, simulating the clinical chipping phenomenon.Materials and Methods: Forty disk-shaped zirconia core (Lava Zirconia, 3M ESPE) (diameter: 3 mm) specimens were veneered circumferentially with a feldspathic veneering ceramic (VM7, Vita Zahnfabrik) (thickness: 2 mm) using a split metal mold. They were then embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic with the bonding surfaces exposed. Specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following surface conditioning protocols (n = 10 per group): group 1, veneer: 4% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Porcelain Etch) + core: aluminum trioxide (50-mu m Al2O3) + core + veneer: silane (ESPE-Sil); group 2: core: Al2O3 (50 mu m) + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane; group 3: veneer: HF + core: 30 mu m aluminum trioxide particles coated with silica (30 mu m SiO2) + core + veneer: silane; group 4: core: 30 mu m SiO2 + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane. Core and veneer ceramic were conditioned individually but no attempt was made to avoid cross contamination of conditioning, simulating the clinical intraoral repair situation. Adhesive resin (VisioBond) was applied to both the core and the veneer ceramic, and resin composite (Quadrant Posterior) was bonded onto both substrates using polyethylene molds and photopolymerized. After thermocycling (6000 cycles, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C), the specimens were subjected to shear bond testing using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure modes were identified using an optical microscope, and scanning electron microscope images were obtained. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed statistically using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Bonferroni Holm correction (alpha = 0.05).Results: Group 3 demonstrated significantly higher values (MPa) (8.6 +/- 2.7) than those of the other groups (3.2 +/- 3.1, 3.2 +/- 3, and 3.1 +/- 3.5 for groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively) (p < 0.001). All groups showed exclusively adhesive failure between the repair resin and the core zirconia. The incidence of cohesive failure in the ceramic was highest in group 3 (8 out of 10) compared to the other groups (0/10, 2/10, and 2/10, in groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively). SEM images showed that air abrasion on the zirconia core only also impinged on the veneering ceramic where the etching pattern was affected.Conclusion: Etching the veneer ceramic with HF gel and silica coating of the zirconia core followed by silanization of both substrates could be advised for the repair of the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Objective: This study evaluated the influence of different surface treatments on the resin bond strength/light-cured characterizing materials (LCCMs), using the intrinsic characterization technique. The intrinsic technique is characterized by the use of LCCMs between the increments of resin composite (resin/thin film of LCCM/external layer of resin covering the LCCM).Materials and Methods: Using a silicone matrix, 240 blocks of composite (Z350/3M ESPE) were fabricated. The surfaces received different surface treatments, totaling four groups (n=60): Group C (control group), no surface treatment was used; Group PA, 37% phosphoric acid for one minute and washing the surface for two minutes; Group RD, roughening with diamond tip; and Group AO, aluminum oxide. Each group was divided into four subgroups (n=15), according to the LCCMs used: Subgroup WT, White Tetric Color pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; Subgroup BT, Black Tetric Color pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; Subgroup WK, White Kolor Plus pigment (Kerr) LCCM; Subgroup BK, Brown Kolor Plus pigment (Kerr) LCCM. All materials were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. After this, block composites were fabricated over the LCCMs. Specimens were sectioned and submitted to microtensile testing to evaluate the bond strength at the interface. Data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (surface treatment and LCCMs) and Tukey tests.Results: ANOVA presented a value of p<0.05. The mean values (+/- SD) for the factor surface treatment were as follows: Group C, 30.05 MPa (+/- 5.88)a; Group PA, 23.46 MPa (+/- 5.45)b; Group RD, 21.39 MPa (+/- 6.36)b; Group AO, 15.05 MPa (+/- 4.57)c. Groups followed by the same letters do not present significant statistical differences. The control group presented significantly higher bond strength values than the other groups. The group that received surface treatment with aluminum oxide presented significantly lower bond strength values than the other groups.Conclusion: Surface treatments of composite with phosphoric acid, diamond tip, and aluminum oxide significantly diminished the bond strength between composite and the LCCMs.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)