Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network

Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum; Calvo Ramírez Juan Norberto; Méndez Mendieta Luisa Fernanda; Amanda Andika Sari; Ajinkya M. Pawar; Alberto Carlos Cruz González

doi:10.12688/f1000research.122108.1

Home Browse Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum¹, Calvo Ramírez Juan Norberto², Méndez Mendieta Luisa Fernanda², Amanda Andika Sari¹, Ajinkya M. Pawar³, Alberto Carlos Cruz González ²

Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum¹, Calvo Ramírez Juan Norberto², [...] Méndez Mendieta Luisa Fernanda², Amanda Andika Sari¹, Ajinkya M. Pawar³, Alberto Carlos Cruz González ²

PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
² Oral Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
³ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai 400008, Maharashtra, India

Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Calvo Ramírez Juan Norberto
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Méndez Mendieta Luisa Fernanda
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Amanda Andika Sari
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Ajinkya M. Pawar
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Alberto Carlos Cruz González
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Polymer infiltrated ceramic networks, or hybrid ceramics, are a combination of infiltrating polymerizable organic monomers into a pre-sintered porous ceramic matrix. In addition to having good mechanical properties, the polymer infiltrated ceramic network must comply with the possibility of adequate bonding to the resinous cement. The surface conditioning of this hybrid material must be carefully considered due to its organic composition and ceramic network. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid and a self-etching ceramic primer, under two different application times, on the bond strength of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network.
Methods: Blocks of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network were cut to obtain sheets, and these were randomized into five groups. For the group termed AAS, airborne-particle abrasion with Al₂O₃ (aluminum oxide) of 50µm was used. For groups HF2 and HF6, hydrofluoric acid was used for 20 and 60 seconds respectively, and for the groups MB2 and MB6, a self-etch ceramic primer was applied for 20 and 60 seconds respectively. A silane was applied to the groups AAS, HF2, and HF6 after the treatment. After 24-hour storage in distilled water, a micro-shear bond strength test was performed using a universal mechanical testing machine. All samples were evaluated in a stereomicroscope at 40x and 50x to determine the type of failure.
Results: The highest and lowest values of bond strength were reported by groups MB6 and AAS, respectively. Groups HF2, HF6, MB6, and MB2 did not report statistically significant differences. The predominant failure pattern was a mixed failure.
Conclusions: With the limitations of the present investigation, the treatments of self-etching ceramic primer and hydrofluoric acid followed by silane were reported to be statistically equal at 20 and 60 seconds.

Keywords

Micro shear bond strength, polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN)

Corresponding author: Alberto Carlos Cruz González

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 Wahjuningrum DA et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Wahjuningrum DA, Norberto CRJ, Fernanda MML et al. Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:798 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122108.1) First published: 18 Jul 2022, 11:798 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122108.1) Latest published: 18 Jul 2022, 11:798 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122108.1)

Editorial note

Editorial Note (26^th July 2023): The F1000 Editorial Team is currently substantiating that this research was presented at an IIARP conference and should be included in the IIARP Gateway. The Editorial Team is currently requesting further information from the authors regarding this. This Editorial Note will be updated as new information is provided.

Introduction

PICN (polymer infiltrated ceramic network), or hybrid ceramics, were introduced in dentistry as a restorative material, which, by infiltrating polymerizable organic monomers into a pre-sintered porous ceramic matrix, promises to obtain mechanical properties like dental enamel and a density equivalent to that of dentine.¹ Hybrid ceramic offers a combined resistance to different failure modes, where the ceramic matrix confers resistance to wear and deformation, while the polymer provides some plastic deformation and reduces toughness or brittleness.²^,³ The PICN has a composition of 86%wt of feldspathic ceramic and 14%wt of infiltrate of dimethacrylates (UDMA and TEGDMA, which are urethane-dimethacrylate and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, respectively).⁴ It presents mechanical properties comparable to CAD-CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) polymers with nano-ceramic particles, lower than lithium disilicate, but superior to CAD-CAM feldspathic ceramics.²^–⁴ Hybrid ceramics, in addition to having good mechanical properties, must comply with the possibility of adequate bonding to the resinous cement.⁵

Adhesive cementation increases the surface energy and the retention of the restoration reinforces its structural strength and maintains marginal integrity.⁶ Due to its high ceramic content, this type of material requires surface conditioning prior to resinous cement to ensure an adequate bond quality.⁷ Etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds is the PICN manufacturer's recommended surface conditioning.⁵ However, other treatments such as hydrofluoric acid at 9% for 90 seconds, silanes, airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide (30-50 μm particles) and tribochemical silica (CoJet System - 30 μm particles) have been reported.⁸^,⁹ The association of hydrofluoric acid or air abrasion (aluminum oxide) with a silane agent can achieve considerable values of bond strength, due to the structure with a high content of feldspathic ceramic present in this material (>80%wt), compared to other CAD-CAM materials with polymeric matrix and dispersed ceramic particles, with lower values of bond strength using this same combination of surface treatments.¹⁰ However, given the risk of excessive dissolution of the vitreous matrix due to the attack of hydrofluoric acid, an etching agent and silane have been proposed in a single step, known commercially as Monobond Etch & Prime.¹¹ With a chemical in its composition less aggressive than hydrofluoric acid, tetrabutylammonium dihydrogen trifluoride, this self-etching ceramic primer has reported considerable values of bond strength in lithium disilicate and feldspathic ceramics.¹²

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid and a self-etching ceramic primer, under two different application times, on the bond strength of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network. The null hypothesis was that the mean values of bond strength of the groups treated with Monobond Etch & Prime would be equal to the groups treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane.

Methods

Ethics statement

We obtained ethical approval for this study from Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (approval number B.CIEFO-094-19). No patients or biological material obtained from patients were involved in this investigation.

Research design

In the present study, 15 sheets (8 mm wide and 10 mm high) were made from three VITA ENAMIC EM14 blocks (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) by means of cuts every 2 mm using a precision diamond disc with constant cooling with distilled water (Isomet, Buehler Illinois, USA). These sheets were included in cylinders of self-curing acrylic resin (Veracril, New Stetic, Guarne, Antioquia, Colombia), 10 mm high, leaving an exposed face of the hybrid ceramic to receive surface treatment. The exposed surfaces were sanded with #600, #800, #1000, and #1200 grain size silicon carbide abrasive paper for approximately 1 minute under manual pressure. The samples were washed in distilled water with ultrasound for 15 minutes.

Experimental procedure

The sheets were randomized into five groups, with three sheets per group (n = 15) according to the surface treatments to be received. The group termed AAS had airborne-particle abrasion with Al₂O₃ of 50 μm applied for 10 seconds with a pressure of 1 bar, it was then washed with an air-water syringe for 20 seconds followed by drying with pressurized air for 10 seconds. A silane (Monobond N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was applied with a microbrush rubbing for five seconds and leaving it to act for 60 seconds. Group MB2 used a self-etch primer (Monobond Etch & Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) which was applied for 20 seconds and then washed with water from an air-water syringe and dried with pressurized air for 10 seconds. Group MB6: like group MB2, but with the only difference that the primer was left to act for 60 seconds. Group HF2 used 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (Maquira Paraná, Brazil) which was applied for 20 seconds, it was then washed with an air-water syringe for 20 seconds, and dried with pressurized air, silane (Monobond N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was applied with a microbrush rubbing for five seconds and it was left to act for 60 seconds, then air was gently applied for 10 seconds. Group HF6 was similar to group HF2, but with the difference that the etching with hydrofluoric acid was carried out for 60 seconds. The hydrofluoric acid residues were neutralized in a supersaturated solution of calcium carbonate.

On the conditioned surfaces, 0.75 mm internal diameter and 0.8 mm high medical grade silicone tubes were positioned and carefully filled with dual resinous cement (LuxaCore Z, DMG, Hamburg, Germany), finally, each cylinder was cured with the high setting for 20 seconds with a LED lamp (Bluephase C8, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). In total, 5 tubes were placed for each hybrid ceramic sheet (n = 15). All samples were stored at 37°C for 24 hours in distilled water (Hygrobath, Whip Mix Louisville, KY, United States). Once the storage was completed, the mold tubes were carefully removed with #12 and #15 scalpel blades, exposing the resinous cement cylinders. All the samples were taken to a universal mechanical testing machine (Shimadzu AG-IS, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), and by means of a steel wire handle, gauge 0.22 mm, with traction force, at a speed of 0.5 mm/min crosshead and a 50N load cell, the micro-shear test was performed. The bond strength was calculated using the equation: R = N/A, where R is bond strength given in MPa, N force in Newtons necessary for failure, and A is the area of the resin-cement-hybrid ceramic joint, measured in mm². The adhesive area (A) was determined by π.r2, where π is a constant and r is the radius obtained from the internal diameter of the medical-grade silicone tube.

All samples were evaluated in a stereomicroscope (NIKON SMZ800, Nikon Instruments Inc. New York, United States) at 40× and 50× to determine the type of failure, these were classified as: adhesive failure, i.e. where there is separation of the union between cement and ceramic, leaving an intact ceramic surface; cohesive failure in the ceramic, i.e where separation occurs only in ceramic; cohesive failure in the resin cement, i.e. where separation occurs only in cement; and mixed failure, which is a combination of the cohesive and adhesive patterns.

Statistical analysis

For the statistical analysis, normality tests were carried out (Shapiro Wilk), and for the comparison of the groups, one-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variances) tests and Tukey's test were executed. A significance level of p < 0.05 was set. The R-project version R-3.6.3 for Windows was used for the statistical analyses (The R Project for Statistical Computing, St. Louis, Missouri, USA).

Results

Descriptively, the results of the groups can be understood as follows: a graphical similarity in the mean values of bond strength the groups MB2, MB6, HF2 and HF6 was observed. the highest data dispersion was obtained in the AAS group, and the lowest graphic dispersion of data were obtained by both groups MB. The highest and lowest mean values of bond strength were reported by groups MB6 and AAS, respectively (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Box-plot bond strength (MPa).

AAS: airborne-particle abrasion, HF2: hydrofluoric acid for 20s and silane, HF6: hydrofluoric acid for 60s and silane, MB2: a self-etch primer for 20s, MB6: a self-etch primer for 60s.

In the statistical comparison by pairs (Tukey’s test) the groups that used Monobond Etch & Prime and hydrofluoric acid were considered equal, while the group AAS was statistically inferior compared to the other four groups (Table 1). The predominant failure pattern in the study was mixed failure (Table 2 and Figure 2). However, the AAS group exhibited an almost exclusive pattern of adhesive failure. For the other four groups, the mixed failure pattern was predominant. The full data are available from Underlying data.³⁰

Table 1. Micro-shear bond strength.

Groups	Mean (standard deviation)	95% confidence interval Lower limit	95% confidence interval Upper limit	Median	Variance	Min. value	Max. value	Range
AAS	14.41(4.33)A	12.01	16.81	14.09	18.81	7.04	21.24	14.20
MB2	20.73(2.03)B	19.60	21.86	20.58	4.14	18.10	24.89	6.79
MB6	21.11(2.70)B	19.61	22.61	20.23	7.32	17.27	26.54	9.26
HF2	19.66(3.47)B	17.73	21.58	18.78	12.10	14.79	26.34	11.55
HF6	20.21(3.66)B	18.18	22.24	20.32	13.44	15.07	25.36	10.28

Table 2. Failure type analysis (%).

Groups	n	Cohesive cement	Cohesive ceramic	Adhesive	Mixed
AAS	15	1 (6.6)	0 (0)	10 (66.6)	4 (26.6)
MB2	15	1 (6.6)	1 (6.6)	1 (6.6)	12 (80)
MB6	15	1 (6.6)	1 (6.6)	1 (6.6)	12 (80)
HF2	15	1 (6.6)	0 (0)	3 (20)	11 (73.3)
HF6	15	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (6.6)	14 (93.3)

Figure 2. Example of each type of failure observed at the stereomicroscope (50×).

A. Adhesive failure, B. Cohesive cement failure, C. Ceramic cohesive failure, D. Mixed failure.

Discussion

In the present study, the bond strength between a PICN and a resinous cement after the use of hydrofluoric acid, a self-etching ceramic primer, and airborne-particle abrasion was compared. The airborne-particle abrasion group was significantly inferior to the two groups of acid etching agents. Therefore, the hypothesis that raised the statistical equality of the mean values of bond strength in the three surface treatments was not accepted.

Airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide particles is an alternative to increase the roughness of the ceramic substrate by impulsing and impacting the surface with abrasive particles, with the potential risk of microcracks and excessive damage to the treated surface.¹³ Parameters such as distance, time, pressure, and particle size can result in different roughness patterns.¹³^,¹⁴ Abrasion with 30 μm size aluminum oxide has been associated with high roughness values and acceptable bond strength mean values on PICN.¹⁵ Although in the literature it is also reported that in CAD-CAM materials with polymeric matrix and dispersed ceramic particles, airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide has shown superior results to acid etching. In PICN an opposite phenomenon generally occurs, this is perhaps based on the microstructural organization of this material.¹⁶ The use of airborne-particle abrasion on the surface of a hybrid ceramic creates roughness through impact microcracks, unlike acid etching that creates micropores due to the partial dissolution of the vitreous matrix.¹⁷ Etching with hydrofluoric acid and airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide, followed by silane, has been reported with surface energy values in Enamic of 147 mJ/m² and 96 mJ/m² respectively. This suggests that the amount of roughness in a surface is not predictive of higher bond strength.¹⁸ Another possible explanation is that VITA ENAMIC, unlike other hybrid CAD-CAM materials, contains a porous network of feldspathic ceramic reinforced with alumina and only one infiltrate of urethane dimethacrylate polymer, allowing a better action of the etching agent and assuming the increased risk of surface damage and unevenness if airborne-particle abrasion is used.¹⁹ This mechanism probably explains why, even though both methods can create comparable values of surface roughness in a hybrid ceramic, the bond strength results can be higher after a chemical attack by acid.⁹^,²⁰ Only one protocol of air abrasion with aluminum oxide was contemplated in this study, which could be considered as a limitation of the research.

On the other hand, the self-etching ceramic primer in the literature has reported bond strength results comparable to hydrofluoric acid and silane on polymer infiltrated ceramic network.²⁰^,²¹ Both etching agents can produce similar roughness values, but self-etching ceramic primer was introduced to the market as a less aggressive alternative to hydrofluoric acid.¹²^,²² The physical-chemical action is due to an acid etching with tetrabutylammonium dihydrogen trifluoride and a chemical interaction through trimethoxy propyl methacrylate, without diminishing the mechanical resistance and fatigue of the ceramic substrate.²³ Additionally, a formation of a hydrophobic silane layer that is theoretically more resistant to hydrolytic degradation has been associated with the use of this self-etching ceramic primer.²⁴ The etching depth of 9% hydrofluoric acid for 20 and 60s is greater than 290 μm compared to a depth of 7 μm of Monobond Etch & Prime for 40s in VITA ENAMIC.²⁵ Therefore, the indication of which surface treatment to use does not only depend on the bond strength results obtained. Hydrofluoric acid on VITA ENAMIC is dependent on the time and concentration of use. Hydrofluoric acid concentrations of 5% between 30 and 90 seconds do not seem to significantly affect flexural strength, on the contrary, the use of hydrofluoric acid at 10% after 30 seconds reports a significant decrease in flexural strength of this hybrid ceramic.²⁶ In this study a concentration of 9.6% was used, with similar bond strength results between 20 and 60 seconds. A consistent finding that hydrofluoric acid etching of VITA ENAMIC for more than 30 seconds does not significantly improve bond strength by shear test.⁵ This analysis may be somewhat helpful in supporting the recommendation of the lowest possible time and concentration of hydrofluoric acid to treat the surface of VITA ENAMIC. However, the present investigation had the limitation of only evaluating one hydrofluoric acid concentration.

Adhesive failure patterns have been associated with low values of bond strength, cohesive and mixed patterns seem to be considered more acceptable because they suppose a better infiltration of the resinous cementing agent in the conditioned surface of the PICN.²⁷^,²⁸ In the present investigation, the predominant pattern was mixed for the hydrofluoric acid and self-etching ceramic primer groups, consistent with the highest values of bond strength in the study, and an almost exclusive pattern of adhesive failures for the airborne-particle abrasion group, in which the lowest values were obtained. The results of this investigation should be considered with caution since the bond strength test was carried out after the short-term storage of the samples. Bond strength can be affected by hydrolytic degradation of the materials in the small adhesive area, storage in water for long periods of time, or thermal cycling.²⁸^,²⁹

Conclusions

With the limitations of the present investigation, the self-etching ceramic primer and hydrofluoric acid followed by silane were reported to be statistically equal at 20 and 60 seconds. The 20 second time seems to be a more reasonable option than 60 seconds applying these surface treatments on a PICN. This is because, if the same bond strength result is obtained at 20 and 60 seconds, it can increase the surface energy in less time. Airborne-particle abrasion is not recommended as the first choice of surface treatment in a PICN.

Data availability

Underlying data

Mendeley Data: Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network. https://doi.org/10.17632/dfm9wr4bwn.4.³⁰

This project contains the following underlying data:

– Acronym manuscript Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network.docx (description of acronyms used within the data spreadsheets).
– Statistical Data.xlsx (raw data for each group. AAS is airborne-particle abrasion, MB2 is a self-etch primer for 20 seconds, HF2 is 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds, MB6 is a self-etch primer for 60 seconds, HF6 is 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds).
– Description groups.xlsx (statistical examination as a comparison among the groups. These statistical examinations are ANOVA, post hoc ANOVA using Tukey, and the graph of the groups).
– Comparison adhesive resistance groups.xlsx (statistical descriptive among the groups. Shows the components in the statistical descriptive, such as median, kurtosis, percentiles, etc. that show the explore descriptive data among these group).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya-Indonesia and The Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá-Colombia. The statistical analysis of this research was supported by the Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

References

1. Cui B-C, Li J, Lin Y-H, et al.: Polymer-infiltrated layered silicates for dental restorative materials. Rare Metals. 2019; 38: 1003–1014. Publisher Full Text
2. El Zhawi H, Kaizer MR, Chughtai A, et al.: Polymer infiltrated ceramic network structures for resistance to fatigue fracture and wear. Dent. Mater. 2016; 32: 1352–1361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Furtado de Mendonca A, Shahmoradi M, Gouvêa CVD, et al.: Microstructural and Mechanical Characterization of CAD/CAM Materials for Monolithic Dental Restorations. J. Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e587–e594. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Hong MS, Choi YS, Lee HH, et al.: Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Chairside CAD/CAM Restorations Fabricated Using a Standardization Method. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14: 3115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Schwenter J, Schmidli F, Weiger R, et al.: Adhesive bonding to polymer infiltrated ceramic. Dent. Mater. J. 2016; 35: 796–802. Publisher Full Text
6. Facenda JC, Borba M, Corazza PH: A literature review on the new polymer-infiltrated ceramic-net-work material (PICN). J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2018; 30: 281–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Helbling F, Özcan M: Adhesion of resin cement to contemporary hybrid ceramic and polymeric CAD/CAM materials: effect of conditioning methods and ageing. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2019; 33: 886–902. Publisher Full Text
8. Motevasselian F, Amiri Z, Chiniforush N, et al.: In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Different Surface Treatments of a Hybrid Ceramic on the Microtensile Bond Strength to a Luting Resin Cement. J. Lasers Med. Sci. Fall. 2019; 10: 297–303. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Papadopoulos K, Pahinis K, Saltidou K, et al.: Evaluation of the Surface Characteristics of Dental CAD/CAM Materials after Different Surface Treatments. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(13): 981. Publisher Full Text
10. Emsermann I, Eggmann F, Krastl G, et al.: Influence of Pretreatment Methods on the Adhesion of Composite and Polymer Infiltrated Ceramic CAD-CAM Blocks. J. Adhes. Dent. 2019; 21: 433–443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Prado M, Prochnow C, Marchionatti AME, et al.: Ceramic Surface Treatment with a Single-component Primer: Resin Adhesion to Glass Ceramics. J. Adhes. Dent. 2018; 20: 99–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. El-damanhoury HM, Gaintantzopoulou MD: Self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching: Etching efficacy and bonding performance. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2018; 62: 75–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Günal-Abduljalil B, Önöral Ö, Ongun S: Micro-shear bond strengths of resin-matrix ceramics subjected to different surface conditioning strategies with or without coupling agent application. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2021; 13(3): 180–190. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Bello YD, Di Domenico MB, Magro LD, et al.: Bond strength between composite repair and polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material: Effect of different surface treatments. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019; 31(3): 275–279. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Sismanoglu S, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Erten-Taysi A, et al.: Influence of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the repair of CAD-CAM composite resins: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020; 124(2): 238.e1–238.e9. Publisher Full Text
16. Eldafrawy M, Greimers L, Bekaert S, et al.: Silane influence on bonding to CAD-CAM composites: An interfacial fracture toughness study. Dent. Mater. 2019; 35(9): 1279–1290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Campos F, Almeida CS, Rippe MP, et al.: Resin Bonding to a Hybrid Ceramic: Effects of Surface Treatments and Aging. Oper. Dent. 2016; 41: 171–178. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Chuenjit P, Suzuki M, Shinkai K: Effect of various surface treatments on the bond strength of resin luting agent and the surface roughness and surface energy of CAD/CAM materials. Dent. Mater. J. 2021; 40: 16–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Niizuma Y, Kobayashi M, Toyama T, et al.: Effect of etching with low concentration hydrofluoric acid on the bond strength of CAD/CAM resin block. Dent. Mater. J. 2020; 39: 1000–1008. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Grangeiro MTV, Rossi NR, Barreto LAL, et al.: Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of the Hybrid Ceramic Characterization Layer. J. Adhes. Dent. 2021; 23: 429–435.
21. el-Damanhoury HM, A. Elsahn N, Sheela S, et al.: Adhesive luting to hybrid ceramic and resin composite CAD/CAM Blocks:Er:YAG Laser versus chemical etching and micro-abrasion pretreatment. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2021; 65: 225–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Murillo-Gómez F, De Goes MF: Bonding effectiveness of tooth-colored materials to resin cement provided by self-etching silane primer after short- and long-term storage. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019; 121: 713.e1–713.e8. Publisher Full Text
23. Dapieve KS, Machry RV, Pilecco RO, et al.: One-step ceramic primer as surface conditioner: Effect on the load-bearing capacity under fatigue of bonded lithium disilicate ceramic simplified restorations. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020; 104: 103686. Publisher Full Text
24. Moreno MBP, Murillo-Gómez F, de Goes MF : Physicochemical and morphological characterization of a glass ceramic treated with different ceramic primers and post-silanization protocols. Dent. Mater. 2019; 35(8): 1073–1081. Publisher Full Text
25. Murillo-Gómez F, Palma-Dibb RG, De Goes MF: Effect of acid etching on tridimensional microstructure of etchable CAD/CAM materials. Dent. Mater. 2018; 34: 944–955. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Miranda JS, Monteiro JB, Silva PNF, et al.: Can different etching protocols change the properties of a hybrid ceramic? Gen. Dent. 2020; 68: 20–25. PubMed Abstract
27. Kömürcüoğlu MB, Sağırkaya E, Tulga A: Influence of different surface treatments on bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to resin cement. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2017; 9: 439–446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Kilinc H, Sanal FA, Turgut S: Shear bond strengths of aged and non-aged CAD/CAM materials after different surface treatments. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2020; 12: 273–282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Silva PNFD, Martinelli-Lobo CM, Bottino MA, et al.: Bond strength between a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network and a composite for repair: effect of several ceramic surface treatments. Braz. Oral Res. 2018; 32: e28.
30. Wahjuningrum DA, Calvo JN, Fernanda MML, et al.: Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic. Mendeley Data, V1. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
² Oral Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
³ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai 400008, Maharashtra, India

Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Calvo Ramírez Juan Norberto
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Méndez Mendieta Luisa Fernanda
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Amanda Andika Sari
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Ajinkya M. Pawar
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Alberto Carlos Cruz González
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 18 Jul 2022, 11:798

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122108.1

Copyright

© 2022 Wahjuningrum DA et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Wahjuningrum DA, Norberto CRJ, Fernanda MML et al. Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:798 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122108.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022

Views

3

Reviewer Report 22 Nov 2023

Sivaranjani Gali, M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134054.r215076

The authors investigated the micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network, especially of VITA Enamic.

The following are my comments:

Schematic illustrations are required to differentiate the

The authors investigated the micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network, especially of VITA Enamic.

The following are my comments:

Schematic illustrations are required to differentiate the groups
Conclusion can be rephrased in line with the objective of the study.
Flowchart of methodology to be included.
Were the samples thermocycled ?
Discussion can include the results of similar studies and how this study stands out from the rest?
Mechanism of action of sandblasting and acid etching can be illustrated.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Dental ceramics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

3

Reviewer Report 20 Nov 2023

Guillermo Manuel Herrera Pérez, Centro de Investigación en Materiales Avanzados, CONAHCYT, Chihuahua, Mexico

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134054.r215064

I read the manuscript entitled “Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network” written by Wahjuningrum et al. The authors show the interesting results. They evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid and a self-etching ceramic ... Continue reading

I read the manuscript entitled “Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network” written by Wahjuningrum et al. The authors show the interesting results. They evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid and a self-etching ceramic primer, considering two different application times. Also, they evaluate the influence of both surface conditions on the bond strength of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network. The manuscript is well organized, and the references used are fine in number and actual. The authors describe the preparation of samples, and they describe the methodology to determine the bond strength. The current work is complemented by the determination of the type of failure (adhesive failure, cohesive failure, and mixed failure) considering the stereomicroscope technique. The predominant failure pattern was a mixed failure. In general, the statistical analyses and their interpretation seem to have been performed properly and the conclusions reached are in line with the results presented. The methods and analyses provided in this manuscript can be replicated by others. Certainly, the theme of this manuscript is suitable for the journal and surely of wide interest to the reading community of F1000Research.

The paper is acceptable after minor revisions for indexing after the comments below are addressed.

The scale bar in the stereomicroscope images should be clearer (Figure 2).
Atomic force microscopy (AFM) analysis should be implemented. The authors mention, in the discussion section, "different roughness patterns, high roughness, and surface roughness", which needs to be verified (including micrographs) and quantified. Additionally, AFM analysis can provide information about physical defects such as microcracks. Also, this technique allows us to evaluate the presence of micropores.
The authors focus on the effect of airborne particle abrasion on the surface of a hybrid ceramic. However, the average particle size (including micrographs and histogram analysis) influence on roughness is not investigated. Please conduct transmission electron microscopy analysis.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Ceramics (ferroelectric and ferromagnetic), Raman, and EELS spectroscopies.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

2

Reviewer Report 20 Nov 2023

Nantawan Krajangta, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134054.r210203

This study examines the micro-shear bond strength of various PICN surface treatments. This is an In Vitro study, which has potential implications for clinical applications in restorative dentistry using the PICN. The clarity and organization of the manuscript are commendable. ... Continue reading

This study examines the micro-shear bond strength of various PICN surface treatments. This is an In Vitro study, which has potential implications for clinical applications in restorative dentistry using the PICN. The clarity and organization of the manuscript are commendable. I have only minor suggestions for improvement as follows:

Abstract:

To improve the coherence of the abstract, it is recommended to align the sequence of description with the order of experimentation and results. Specifically, the abstract currently discusses HF2 and HF6 before MB2 and MB6, while the presentation of experimental details and results showcases MB2 and MB6 before HF2 and HF6. To enhance consistency, consider revising the abstract to ensure that the order of describing treatments aligns with the order in which the experimentation and results are presented.

Introduction:

The introduction section is well structured. However, to improve this section, explain and emphasize existing knowledge that has been studied and the gap of knowledge related to surface treatment of PICN.

Methodology:

1. Research design:

Please explain more about how the manual pressure is uniformly controlled for polishing the specimens.
It is typically preferred to prepare samples with width and length matching the block dimensions, but the sample in this study has dimensions of 8x10x2 mm. It was prepared by cutting the VITA ENAMIC EM14 block with dimensions of 12x14x18 mm. Please explain the cutting method. To prepare additional samples in the content or use figures.

2. Experimental procedure:

The introduction states, "Etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds is the PICN manufacturer's recommended surface conditioning." However, the testing involved the use of 9.6% HF. Could you provide the rationale for this choice?
In this study, all samples underwent evaluation using a stereomicroscope (NIKON SMZ800, Nikon Instruments Inc. New York, United States) at both 40x and 50x magnifications to ascertain the type of failure. Why was testing conducted at both 40x and 50x, especially considering that study results are only presented at 50x magnification?

Result:

The order of abbreviation descriptions in Tables 1 and 2 should be modified to reflect the order of information presented in the tables.

Discussion:

This study on the effects of 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, therefore, the statement "This analysis may be somewhat helpful in supporting the recommendation of the lowest possible time and concentration of hydrofluoric acid to treat the surface of the VITA ENAMIC." is inaccurate and does not align with the outcomes of this study. Please correct this statement.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: digital dentistry, esthetic dentistry, dental materials

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 18 Jul 22	read	read	read

Nantawan Krajangta, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
Guillermo Manuel Herrera Pérez, CONAHCYT, Chihuahua, Mexico
Sivaranjani Gali, M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, India

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

22 Nov 2023 | for Version 1

Sivaranjani Gali, M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The authors investigated the micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network, especially of VITA Enamic.

The following are my comments:

Schematic illustrations are required to differentiate the groups
Conclusion can be rephrased in line with the objective of the study.
Flowchart of methodology to be included.
Were the samples thermocycled ?
Discussion can include the results of similar studies and how this study stands out from the rest?
Mechanism of action of sandblasting and acid etching can be illustrated.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Dental ceramics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

20 Nov 2023 | for Version 1

Guillermo Manuel Herrera Pérez, Centro de Investigación en Materiales Avanzados, CONAHCYT, Chihuahua, Mexico

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

I read the manuscript entitled “Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network” written by Wahjuningrum et al. The authors show the interesting results. They evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid and a self-etching ceramic primer, considering two different application times. Also, they evaluate the influence of both surface conditions on the bond strength of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network. The manuscript is well organized, and the references used are fine in number and actual. The authors describe the preparation of samples, and they describe the methodology to determine the bond strength. The current work is complemented by the determination of the type of failure (adhesive failure, cohesive failure, and mixed failure) considering the stereomicroscope technique. The predominant failure pattern was a mixed failure. In general, the statistical analyses and their interpretation seem to have been performed properly and the conclusions reached are in line with the results presented. The methods and analyses provided in this manuscript can be replicated by others. Certainly, the theme of this manuscript is suitable for the journal and surely of wide interest to the reading community of F1000Research.

The paper is acceptable after minor revisions for indexing after the comments below are addressed.

The scale bar in the stereomicroscope images should be clearer (Figure 2).
Atomic force microscopy (AFM) analysis should be implemented. The authors mention, in the discussion section, "different roughness patterns, high roughness, and surface roughness", which needs to be verified (including micrographs) and quantified. Additionally, AFM analysis can provide information about physical defects such as microcracks. Also, this technique allows us to evaluate the presence of micropores.
The authors focus on the effect of airborne particle abrasion on the surface of a hybrid ceramic. However, the average particle size (including micrographs and histogram analysis) influence on roughness is not investigated. Please conduct transmission electron microscopy analysis.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Ceramics (ferroelectric and ferromagnetic), Raman, and EELS spectroscopies.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

20 Nov 2023 | for Version 1

Nantawan Krajangta, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This study examines the micro-shear bond strength of various PICN surface treatments. This is an In Vitro study, which has potential implications for clinical applications in restorative dentistry using the PICN. The clarity and organization of the manuscript are commendable. I have only minor suggestions for improvement as follows:

Abstract:

To improve the coherence of the abstract, it is recommended to align the sequence of description with the order of experimentation and results. Specifically, the abstract currently discusses HF2 and HF6 before MB2 and MB6, while the presentation of experimental details and results showcases MB2 and MB6 before HF2 and HF6. To enhance consistency, consider revising the abstract to ensure that the order of describing treatments aligns with the order in which the experimentation and results are presented.

Introduction:

The introduction section is well structured. However, to improve this section, explain and emphasize existing knowledge that has been studied and the gap of knowledge related to surface treatment of PICN.

Methodology:

1. Research design:

Please explain more about how the manual pressure is uniformly controlled for polishing the specimens.
It is typically preferred to prepare samples with width and length matching the block dimensions, but the sample in this study has dimensions of 8x10x2 mm. It was prepared by cutting the VITA ENAMIC EM14 block with dimensions of 12x14x18 mm. Please explain the cutting method. To prepare additional samples in the content or use figures.

2. Experimental procedure:

The introduction states, "Etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds is the PICN manufacturer's recommended surface conditioning." However, the testing involved the use of 9.6% HF. Could you provide the rationale for this choice?
In this study, all samples underwent evaluation using a stereomicroscope (NIKON SMZ800, Nikon Instruments Inc. New York, United States) at both 40x and 50x magnifications to ascertain the type of failure. Why was testing conducted at both 40x and 50x, especially considering that study results are only presented at 50x magnification?

Result:

The order of abbreviation descriptions in Tables 1 and 2 should be modified to reflect the order of information presented in the tables.

Discussion:

This study on the effects of 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, therefore, the statement "This analysis may be somewhat helpful in supporting the recommendation of the lowest possible time and concentration of hydrofluoric acid to treat the surface of the VITA ENAMIC." is inaccurate and does not align with the outcomes of this study. Please correct this statement.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

digital dentistry, esthetic dentistry, dental materials

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Cui B-C, Li J, Lin Y-H, et al.: Polymer-infiltrated layered silicates for dental restorative materials. Rare Metals. 2019; 38: 1003–1014. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. El Zhawi H, Kaizer MR, Chughtai A, et al.: Polymer infiltrated ceramic network structures for resistance to fatigue fracture and wear. Dent. Mater. 2016; 32: 1352–1361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Furtado de Mendonca A, Shahmoradi M, Gouvêa CVD, et al.: Microstructural and Mechanical Characterization of CAD/CAM Materials for Monolithic Dental Restorations. J. Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e587–e594. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Hong MS, Choi YS, Lee HH, et al.: Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Chairside CAD/CAM Restorations Fabricated Using a Standardization Method. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14: 3115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Schwenter J, Schmidli F, Weiger R, et al.: Adhesive bonding to polymer infiltrated ceramic. Dent. Mater. J. 2016; 35: 796–802. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Facenda JC, Borba M, Corazza PH: A literature review on the new polymer-infiltrated ceramic-net-work material (PICN). J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2018; 30: 281–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Helbling F, Özcan M: Adhesion of resin cement to contemporary hybrid ceramic and polymeric CAD/CAM materials: effect of conditioning methods and ageing. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2019; 33: 886–902. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Motevasselian F, Amiri Z, Chiniforush N, et al.: In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Different Surface Treatments of a Hybrid Ceramic on the Microtensile Bond Strength to a Luting Resin Cement. J. Lasers Med. Sci. Fall. 2019; 10: 297–303. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Papadopoulos K, Pahinis K, Saltidou K, et al.: Evaluation of the Surface Characteristics of Dental CAD/CAM Materials after Different Surface Treatments. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(13): 981. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Emsermann I, Eggmann F, Krastl G, et al.: Influence of Pretreatment Methods on the Adhesion of Composite and Polymer Infiltrated Ceramic CAD-CAM Blocks. J. Adhes. Dent. 2019; 21: 433–443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Prado M, Prochnow C, Marchionatti AME, et al.: Ceramic Surface Treatment with a Single-component Primer: Resin Adhesion to Glass Ceramics. J. Adhes. Dent. 2018; 20: 99–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. El-damanhoury HM, Gaintantzopoulou MD: Self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching: Etching efficacy and bonding performance. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2018; 62: 75–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Günal-Abduljalil B, Önöral Ö, Ongun S: Micro-shear bond strengths of resin-matrix ceramics subjected to different surface conditioning strategies with or without coupling agent application. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2021; 13(3): 180–190. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Bello YD, Di Domenico MB, Magro LD, et al.: Bond strength between composite repair and polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material: Effect of different surface treatments. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019; 31(3): 275–279. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Sismanoglu S, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Erten-Taysi A, et al.: Influence of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the repair of CAD-CAM composite resins: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020; 124(2): 238.e1–238.e9. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Eldafrawy M, Greimers L, Bekaert S, et al.: Silane influence on bonding to CAD-CAM composites: An interfacial fracture toughness study. Dent. Mater. 2019; 35(9): 1279–1290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Campos F, Almeida CS, Rippe MP, et al.: Resin Bonding to a Hybrid Ceramic: Effects of Surface Treatments and Aging. Oper. Dent. 2016; 41: 171–178. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Chuenjit P, Suzuki M, Shinkai K: Effect of various surface treatments on the bond strength of resin luting agent and the surface roughness and surface energy of CAD/CAM materials. Dent. Mater. J. 2021; 40: 16–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Niizuma Y, Kobayashi M, Toyama T, et al.: Effect of etching with low concentration hydrofluoric acid on the bond strength of CAD/CAM resin block. Dent. Mater. J. 2020; 39: 1000–1008. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Grangeiro MTV, Rossi NR, Barreto LAL, et al.: Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of the Hybrid Ceramic Characterization Layer. J. Adhes. Dent. 2021; 23: 429–435.

[21] 21. el-Damanhoury HM, A. Elsahn N, Sheela S, et al.: Adhesive luting to hybrid ceramic and resin composite CAD/CAM Blocks:Er:YAG Laser versus chemical etching and micro-abrasion pretreatment. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2021; 65: 225–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Murillo-Gómez F, De Goes MF: Bonding effectiveness of tooth-colored materials to resin cement provided by self-etching silane primer after short- and long-term storage. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019; 121: 713.e1–713.e8. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Dapieve KS, Machry RV, Pilecco RO, et al.: One-step ceramic primer as surface conditioner: Effect on the load-bearing capacity under fatigue of bonded lithium disilicate ceramic simplified restorations. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020; 104: 103686. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Moreno MBP, Murillo-Gómez F, de Goes MF : Physicochemical and morphological characterization of a glass ceramic treated with different ceramic primers and post-silanization protocols. Dent. Mater. 2019; 35(8): 1073–1081. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Murillo-Gómez F, Palma-Dibb RG, De Goes MF: Effect of acid etching on tridimensional microstructure of etchable CAD/CAM materials. Dent. Mater. 2018; 34: 944–955. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Miranda JS, Monteiro JB, Silva PNF, et al.: Can different etching protocols change the properties of a hybrid ceramic? Gen. Dent. 2020; 68: 20–25. PubMed Abstract

[27] 27. Kömürcüoğlu MB, Sağırkaya E, Tulga A: Influence of different surface treatments on bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to resin cement. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2017; 9: 439–446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Kilinc H, Sanal FA, Turgut S: Shear bond strengths of aged and non-aged CAD/CAM materials after different surface treatments. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2020; 12: 273–282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Silva PNFD, Martinelli-Lobo CM, Bottino MA, et al.: Bond strength between a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network and a composite for repair: effect of several ceramic surface treatments. Braz. Oral Res. 2018; 32: e28.

[30] 30. Wahjuningrum DA, Calvo JN, Fernanda MML, et al.: Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic. Mendeley Data, V1. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Micro-shear bond strength of different surface treatments on a polymer infiltrated ceramic network

Abstract

Keywords

Editorial note

Introduction

Methods

Ethics statement

Research design

Experimental procedure

Statistical analysis

Results

Figure 1. Box-plot bond strength (MPa).

Table 1. Micro-shear bond strength.

Table 2. Failure type analysis (%).

Figure 2. Example of each type of failure observed at the stereomicroscope (50×).

Discussion

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated