ABSTRACT
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).METHODSA 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONSHydrofluoric acid and primer/silane coupling agent create a porous surface on the ceramic that allow a good interaction with silane coupling agent.