Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, silane solution, and adhesive system application on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD) to three resin cements.


METHODS
Circular bonding areas were delimited on the lithium disilicate surfaces using a perforated adhesive tape. Specimens were assigned to 18 subgroups (n=12) according to surface treatment: NT = no treatment; HF = 4.8% HF for 20 seconds; silane solution: (1) no silane; (2) Monobond Plus, a silane/10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate solution for 60 seconds; (3) Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC, a dual-cure adhesive; and resin cement: (1) Variolink II, a bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (bis-GMA)-based, hand-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (2) Multilink Automix, a bis-GMA-based, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement; (3) RelyX Unicem 2, a self-adhesive, auto-mixed, dual-cure resin cement. Tygon tubes (Ø=0.8 mm) were used as cylinder matrices for resin cement application. After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were submitted to the μSBS test. Mode of failure was evaluated under an optical microscope and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin cement, or cohesive in ceramic. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way analysis of variance and Dunnett test (p<0.05).


RESULTS
When means were pooled for the factor surface treatment, HF resulted in a significantly higher μSBS than did NT (p<0.0001). Regarding the use of a silane solution, the mean μSBS values obtained with Monobond Plus and Monobond Plus+ExciTE F DSC were not significantly different but were higher than those obtained with no silane (p<0.001). Considering the factor resin cement, Variolink II resulted in a significantly higher mean μSBS than did RelyX Unicem 2 (p<0.03). The mean μSBS for Multilink Automix was not significantly different from those of Variolink II and RelyX Unicem 2. According to Dunnett post hoc test (p<0.05), there was no significant difference in μSBS between the different resin cements for HF-etched and silanized (with or without adhesive application) LD surfaces.


CONCLUSIONS
LD may benefit from pretreatment of the inner surface with HF and silanization, regardless of the resin cement used.
D P
DP
Lise
J
J
Perdigão
A
A
Van Ende
O
O
Zidan
G C
GC
Lopes
D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D002516:Ceramics; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003776:Dental Porcelain; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties
C095997:DCR cement; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; C493120:lithia disilicate; D003776:Dental Porcelain; C103502:Variolink; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C033930:Silar (3M); C023506:Glass ceramics; C069749:methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate