Repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics

PURPOSE: To explore the influence of different surface conditionings on surface changes and the influence of surface treatments and aging on the bond strengths of composites to non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rectangular-shaped non-aged and aged (5000 thermocycles) resin nanoceramic specimens (Lava Ultimate) (n=63, each) were divided into 3 groups according to surface treatments (untreated, air abrasion, or silica coating) (n=21). The surface roughness was measured and scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each group. Afterwards, the specimens were repaired with a composite resin (Filtek Z550) and half were sent for aging (5000 thermocycles, n=10, each). Shear bond strengths and failure types were evaluated. Roughness and bond strength were investigated by two- and three-way analysis of variance, respectively. The correlation between the roughness and bond strength was investigated by Pearson's correlation test. RESULTS: Surface-treated samples had higher roughness compared with the untreated specimens (P=.000). For the non-aged resin nanoceramic groups, aging was a significant factor for bond strength; for the aged resin nanoceramic groups, surface treatment and aging were significant factors. The failures were mostly adhesive after thermal cycling, except in the non-aged untreated group and the aged air-abraded group, which had mostly mixed failures. Roughness and bond strength were positively correlated (P=.003). CONCLUSION: Surface treatment is not required for the repair of non-aged resin nanoceramic; for the repair of aged resin nanoceramic restorations, air abrasion is recommended.

Mechanical properties of zirconia after different surface treatments and repeated firings

PURPOSE: This study investigated the influence of surface conditioning procedures and repeated firings on monoclinic content and strength of zirconia before cementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sintered bar-shaped zirconia specimens were subjected to no surface treatment (control), air abrasion, or grinding (n=21). Their roughness was evaluated using a profilometer, and microscope analysis was performed on one specimen of each group. Then, 2 or 10 repeated firings (n=10) were executed, the monoclinic content of specimens was analyzed by X-ray diffraction, and a three-point flexural strength test was performed. Surface roughness values were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests, the monoclinic content values were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests, and the flexural strength values were tested using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (P=.05). Spearman's correlation test was performed to define relationships among measured parameters. RESULTS: Surface-treated specimens were rougher than untreated specimens and had a higher monoclinic content (P<.005), and the relationship between roughness and monoclinic content was significant (P<.000). Neither surface treatment nor firing significantly affected the flexural strength, but Weibull analysis showed that for the air-abraded samples the characteristic strength was significantly lower after the 10th firing than after the 2nd firing. CONCLUSION: After firing, a negligible amount of monoclinic content remained on the zirconia surfaces, and rougher surfaces had higher monoclinic contents than untreated surfaces. Multiple firings could be performed if necessary, but the fracture probability could increase after multiple firings for rougher surfaces.