SEARCH ARTICLES
LATEST ARTICLES
Table of Contents
2020 Month : March Volume : 9 Issue : 10 Page : 705-710Influence of Shear Bonding Strength of Lithium Disilicate to Enamel under Different Surface Treatments.
Hisham Abdullah Mously1, Sohil Ahmed Kazim2, Rashad Nabeel Nageeb3, Ghada Hussein Naguib4, Mohamed Tharwat Hamed5
Corresponding Author:
Mohamed Tharwat Hamed,
BDS, MSD, CAGS, MPH, MPHE, DMSc.
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics,
Cairo University School of Dentistry,
Alkasr Aleiny, Almanyal, Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail: mohsarwat62@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Accurate diagnosis and proper treatment planning should be established before making any prosthetic rehabilitation to restore the good appearance of the tooth, a better smile, phonetics, and to achieve perfect occlusion/mastication. We wanted to evaluate the changes of surface treatment protocols on the tensile bonding strength between enamel and ceramic restorations (lithium disilicate).
METHODS
A total of 20 freshly extracted, non-carious teeth were stored in normal saline solution at 25°C until used. Clean enamel surfaces 2 mm X 2 mm were obtained from the extracted teeth by using wheel diamond bur. Each enamel side received one E-max sprue, so four sprues of different surface treatment protocols per tooth (G1 TS: Etching, bonding, and curing. CS: Etching, monobond, curing, overall light cure) (G2 TS: Bonding, curing, self-etch / self-adhesive resin cement, overall light cure. CS: Monobond etch and prime) (G3 TS: Etching, bonding without curing. CS: Etching, monobond, curing, overall light cure) (G4 TS: Etching, bonding, curing. CS: Etching, monobond, bonding, curing, light-cure resin cement, overall light cure). Tensile bonding strength was measured using the Instron testing machine. One-way ANOVA test was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
The highest mean was observed in Group 3 (124.34±43.47) followed by Group 1 (104.29±50.09), which is control group. In contrast, the lowest mean was observed in Group 2 (83.64 ± 53.56) and Group 4 (94.14±57.91). The results of ANOVA test have shown a significant difference between the surface treatment groups at 5% significance level.
CONCLUSIONS
Hydrofluoric acid and primer/silane coupling agent create a porous surface on the ceramic that allow a good interaction with silane coupling agent.
KEY WORDS
Enamel, Hydrofluoric Acid, Lithium Disilicate, Primer, Silane, Tensile Bonding Strength