Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermocycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student's t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P <0.05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P <0.05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P <0.05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)805-813
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Oral Rehabilitation
Volume28
Issue number9
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2001

Fingerprint

Shear Strength
Aluminum Oxide
Saliva
Powders
Composite Resins
Therapeutics
Glass
Resin Cements
Control Groups
Water
Glass ceramics
Adhesives
Microscopy
Analysis of Variance
Students
In-Ceram

Keywords

  • Adhesive cement
  • Bond strength
  • Glass-infiltrated ceramic
  • Glove powder contamination
  • In-ceram
  • Saliva contamination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic. / Lu, Y. C.; Tseng, H.; Shih, Y. H.; Lee, S. Y.

In: Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Vol. 28, No. 9, 09.2001, p. 805-813.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3d8328e20d0d40ecac77c45fe756f779,
title = "Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermocycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student's t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P <0.05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P <0.05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P <0.05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use.",
keywords = "Adhesive cement, Bond strength, Glass-infiltrated ceramic, Glove powder contamination, In-ceram, Saliva contamination",
author = "Lu, {Y. C.} and H. Tseng and Shih, {Y. H.} and Lee, {S. Y.}",
year = "2001",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "805--813",
journal = "Journal of Oral Rehabilitation",
issn = "0305-182X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of surface treatments on bond strength of glass-infiltrated ceramic

AU - Lu, Y. C.

AU - Tseng, H.

AU - Shih, Y. H.

AU - Lee, S. Y.

PY - 2001/9

Y1 - 2001/9

N2 - The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermocycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student's t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P <0.05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P <0.05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P <0.05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use.

AB - The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various surface treatments on the bond strength at the In-Ceram/resin composite interface. Ninety-eight In-Ceram specimens were divided into seven groups and exposed to various surface treatments as follows: (A) control (B) saliva contamination (C) saliva contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (D) glove powder contamination (E) glove powder contamination plus aluminum oxide sandblasting (F) rough aluminum oxide sandblasting and (G) excess glass infiltration. A resin composite cylinder was cemented to each In-Ceram specimen with Panavia 21 resin luting cement. Half of the cemented specimens in each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the other half were stored in water for 2 weeks and then were thermocycled for 2000 cycles. Shear bond strengths (SBS) of seven specimens in each subgroup were determined and analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test as well as Student's t-test. Scanning electronic microscopy was used to identify the type of bond failure. Shear bond strength was significantly decreased by saliva and glove powder contaminations (P <0.05). Sandblasting treatment did not improve the saliva-contaminated specimens. However, the glove powder plus sandblasting group showed no significant difference in SBS compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in SBS between the excess glass-infiltrating group and the control group. The SBS was significantly decreased by rough aluminum oxide sandblasting (P <0.05). The SBS values of groups without thermocycling were significantly greater than those of groups with thermocycling (P <0.05). There were no significant differences among SBS values of the seven groups with thermocycling. Combined cohesive and adhesive bond failures were seen in every group. Various surface treatments or contaminants may significantly influence the bond strength of In-Ceram restorative in clinical use.

KW - Adhesive cement

KW - Bond strength

KW - Glass-infiltrated ceramic

KW - Glove powder contamination

KW - In-ceram

KW - Saliva contamination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035461093&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035461093&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 805

EP - 813

JO - Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

SN - 0305-182X

IS - 9

ER -