dc.contributor | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) | |
dc.contributor | University of Taubaté (UNITAU) | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-01T09:31:04Z | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-12-20T03:42:55Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-05-01T09:31:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-12-20T03:42:55Z | |
dc.date.created | 2022-05-01T09:31:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-01-01 | |
dc.identifier | Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, v. 23, n. 5, p. 429-435, 2021. | |
dc.identifier | 1757-9988 | |
dc.identifier | 1461-5185 | |
dc.identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/11449/233638 | |
dc.identifier | 10.3290/j.jad.b2000235 | |
dc.identifier | 2-s2.0-85116738095 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5413737 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: Using the microshear bond strength (pSBS) test, this study investigated the bond strength between a hybrid ceramic and the extrinsic characterization layer after different ceramic surface treatments. Materials and Methods: Hybrid ceramic blocks (Vita Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) were sectioned and randomly divided into 4 groups (N = 120) according to the surface treatment and aging (n = 15): P: polishing; E: acid etching with HF; A: aluminum oxide blasting; S: self-etching ceramic primer. The specimens were silanized, then cylinders of light-curing characterization material (Vita Enamic Stain, 1.6 mm diameter x 2 mm height) were fabricated, followed by glazing. The specimens were subsequently immersed in distilled water for 24 h and subjected to the pSBS test using a universal testing machine (load cell 0.5 mm/min, 50 kgf) or tested after thermocycling for 10,000 cycles in water (5°C-55°C). After treatment, the specimen surfaces were analyzed using SEM, with failure types defined as adhesive, predominantly adhesive, or cohesive. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Results: The most frequent failure type was predominantly adhesive between ceramic and the characterization layer. There were statistically significant differences between the surface treatments (p < 0.05). Thermocycling did not lead to statistically signifcant different results (p > 0.05). For groups P and A, a sharp decrease in SBS was observed. Conclusion: The absence of surface treatment drastically reduced the microshear bond strength between the ceramic and the characterization layer. Conditioning with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s is the most suitable treatment for adhesion of the characterization layer to hybrid ceramic. | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.relation | Journal of Adhesive Dentistry | |
dc.source | Scopus | |
dc.subject | bond strength | |
dc.subject | ceramic | |
dc.subject | hybrid ceramic | |
dc.title | Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of the Hybrid Ceramic Characterization Layer | |
dc.type | Artículos de revistas | |