Is the adhesive or mechanical behavior of glass ceramics influenced by the adhesive layer application after etching and silanization? A literature review

Aim: This review investigated the effect of applying an adhesive after surface treatment of glass-ceramics on the bonding, mechanical or clinical behavior. Methods: Studies comparing the adhesive, mechanical or clinical behavior of glass-ceramics, with or without adhesive application after surface treatment, were included. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases (January 2022), resulting in 15 included studies. Results: Regarding the evaluated outcomes, 13 studies assessed bond strength, 2 studies assessed biaxial flexural strength and 1 study assessed fatigue failure load, while no study evaluating clinical outcomes was included. It was possible to observe that the adhesive application after ceramic surface treatment was unfavorable or did not influence the evaluated outcomes. Conclusion: Most of the evidence available in the literature shows that the adhesive application after surface treatment does not improve the adhesive and mechanical behavior of glass-ceramics

Adhesion to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic etched with hydrofluoric acid at distinct concentrations

Abstract This study evaluated the effect of different hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentrations on the bond strength between a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic and a resin cement. Eighty ceramic-blocks (12×7×2 mm) of IPS e.Max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) were produced and randomly assigned to 8 groups, considering 2 study factors: HF concentration in 4 levels, i.e., 1% (HF1), 3% (HF3), 5% (HF5), and 10% (HF10), and storage in 2 levels, i.e., baseline (tests were performed 24 h after cementation), and aged (storage for 150 days + 12,000 thermal-cycles at 5°C and 55°C). Acid etching (20 s) was performed, followed by washing, drying, and silanization. Four resin cement cylinders (ϕ= 0.96 mm) were built-up from starch matrices on each ceramic sample (n= 40). Additional ceramic samples were etched and analyzed for contact angle, micro-morphology, and roughness. In baseline condition (without aging), the HF3, HF5, and HF10 groups showed similar bond strength values (13.9 - 15.9 MPa), and HF1 (11.2 MPa) presented lower values than HF5, being that statistically different (p= 0.012). After aging, all the mean bond strengths statistically decreased, being that HF3, HF5, and HF10 (7.8 - 11 MPa) were similar and higher than HF1 (1.8 MPa) (p= 0.0001). For contact angle, HF3, HF5, and HF10 presented similar values (7.8 - 10.4°), lower than HF1 and CTRL groups. HF5 and HF10 presented rougher surfaces than other conditions. For better bond strength results, the tested ceramic may be etched by HF acid in concentrations of 3%, 5%, and 10%.

Resumo Este estudo avaliou o efeito de diferentes concentrações de ácido fluorídrico (HF) na resistência de união entre uma cerâmica vítrea à base de dissilicato de lítio e um cimento resinoso. Oitenta blocos cerâmicos (12×7×2 mm) de IPS e.Max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) foram produzidos e distribuídos aleatoriamente em 8 grupos, considerando 2 fatores de estudo: concentração de HF em 4 níveis, isto é, 1% (HF1), 3% (HF3), 5% (HF5), e 10% (HF10), e armazenamento em 2 níveis, isto é, condição inicial (testes foram realizados 24 h após a cimentação), e envelhecidos (150 dias de armazenamento + 12.000 ciclos térmicos a 5°C e 55°C). Condicionamento ácido (20 s) foi realizado, seguido por lavagem, secagem e silanização. Quatro cilindros de cimento resinoso (ϕ= 0.96 mm) foram construídos a partir de matrizes de amido em cada amostra cerâmica (n= 40). Amostras cerâmicas adicionais foram condicionadas e analisadas quanto ao ângulo de contato, micro-morfologia e rugosidade. Na condição inicial (sem envelhecimento), os grupos HF3, HF5, e HF10 mostraram valores de resistência de união similares (13.9 - 15.9 MPa), e HF1 apresentou valores menores que HF5, sendo estatisticamente diferente (p= 0.012). Após o envelhecimento, todas as médias de resistência de união diminuíram estatisticamente, sendo que HF3, HF5 e HF10 foram similares e maiores que HF1 (p= 0.0001). Para o ângulo de contato, HF3, HF5 e HF10 apresentaram valores similares (7.8 - 10.4°), menores que os grupos HF1 e CTRL. HF5 e HF10 apresentaram superfícies mais rugosas que as outras condições. Para melhores resultados de resistência de união, a cerâmica testada pode ser condicionada com ácido fluorídrico nas concentrações de 3%, 5% e 10%.

Fatigue strength of several dental ceramics indicated for CAD-CAM monolithic restorations

Abstract This in vitro study evaluated the fatigue strength of different ceramic materials indicated for monolithic restorations. Disc-shaped specimens were made according to ISO 6872 from five different ceramic materials: feldspathic ceramic (FC), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PIC), lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LD), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic (ZLS), and high translucent tetragonal zirconia polycrystals doped by yttrium (YZ-HT). After obtaining the mean of each material (n = 5) from monotonic load-to-failure tests, specimens (n = 20) were subjected to fatigue tests (staircase method) using a biaxial flexural setup (piston-on-three-balls), to determine the fatigue strength. The parameters used for fatigue tests were: 100,000 cycles at 10 Hz, initial load of ~ 60% of mean load-to-failure, and step size of 5% of the initial load (specific for each ceramic material). Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni's test (α = 0.05) were used to analyze the fatigue strength data. Fatigue strength (MPa) of the materials was statistically different among each other as follows: YZ-HT (370.2 ± 38.7) > LD (175.2 ± 7.5) > ZLS (152.1 ± 7.5) > PIC (81.8 ± 3.9) > FC (50.8 ± 1.9). Thus, it can be concluded that, in terms of fatigue, high translucent polycrystalline zirconia is the best choice for monolithic restorations as it bears the highest load before cracking/fracturing.