Evaluation of Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of Two Types of Resin ceramics with dentin after different surface treatments. | ||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science | ||
| Article 4, Volume 23, Issue 2, April 2020, Pages 111-118 PDF (1.4 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2020.25656.1026 | ||
| Author | ||
| Mahmoud Elsaid Ahmed* | ||
| Dental Bio-materials Department, Cairo, Boys, Al-Azhar University. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was intended for evaluation the effect of different surface treatments on microtensile bond strength of two different luting resin cements to two CAD/CAM resin ceramic materials with dentin. Materials and Methods: A total number of 112 samples were used for microtensile bond strength test (µ-TBS). Samples were divided into two equal main groups according to type of resin ceramic used (Vita Enamic [ENA] and Lava Ultimate [LVU]). Then each main group was subdivided according to the surface treatment performed into four equal subgroups; Gr 1 (sandblasting (SB) with Al2O3 50µm), Gr 2(sandblasting (SB) with Al2O3 110µm), Gr 3 (plasma etching), and Gr 4 (Hydrofluoric acid (HF) plus Silane), then two types of resin cements (Rely X Ultimate, Panavia f 2.0) were applied to the treated ceramics in each group. µ-TBS test was performed and the data statistically analyzed. Results: The results of this study revealed that; LVU recorded statistically significant higher µ-TBS than ENA. Rely X Ultimate recorded statistically significant higher µ-TBS than Panavia F 2.0. Conclusion: LVU has higher µ-TBS than ENA with all surface treatments except with HF plus Silane ENA has higher µ-TBS than LVU. Key Words: Resin ceramic, Resin cement, sandblasting, Plasma, Hydrofluoric acid. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Resin ceramic; Resin cement; sandblasting; Plasma; Hydrofluoric acid | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 250 PDF Download: 422 |
||
