ABSTRACT
Zirconia (ZrO2) is a bioinert, strong, and tough ceramic, while titania (TiO2) is bioactive but has poor mechanical properties. It is expected that ZrO2-TiO2 mixed ceramics incorporate the individual properties of both ceramics, so that this material would exhibit better biological properties. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the biocompatibility properties of ZrO2-TiO2 mixed ceramics. Sintered ceramics pellets, obtained from powders of TiO2, ZrO2, and three different ZrO2-TiO2 mixed oxides were used. Roughnesses, X-ray diffraction, microstructure through SEM, hardness, and DRIFT characterizations were performed. For biocompatibility analysis cultured FMM1 fibroblasts were plated on the top of disks and counted in SEM micrographs 1 and 2 days later. Data were compared by ANOVA complemented by Tukey's test. All samples presented high densities and similar microstructure. The H2O content in the mixed ceramics was more evident than in pure ceramics. The number of fibroblasts attached to the disks increased significantly independently of the experimental group. The cell growth on the top of the ZrO2-TiO2 samples was similar and significantly higher than those of TiO2 and ZrO2 samples. Our in vitro experiments showed that the ZrO2-TiO2 sintered ceramics are biocompatible allowing faster cell growth than pure oxides ceramics. The improvement of hardness is proportional to the ZrO2 content. Thus, the ZrO2-TiO2 sintered ceramics could be considered as potential implant material.
Subject(s)
Biocompatible Materials/toxicity , Ceramics/toxicity , Titanium , Zirconium , Animals , Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Cell Proliferation/drug effects , Cells, Cultured , Ceramics/chemistry , Fibroblasts/cytology , Fibroblasts/drug effects , Humans , Materials Testing , Prostheses and Implants/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to assess the microtensile bond strength of a self-etching adhesive system to enamel and dentin prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation or air abrasion, as well as to evaluate the adhesive interfaces by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For microtensile bond strength test, 80 third molars were randomly assigned to five groups: Group I, carbide bur, control (CB); II, air abrasion with standard tip (ST); III, air abrasion with supersonic tip (SP); IV, Er:YAG laser 250 mJ/4 Hz (L250); V, Er:YAG laser 300 mJ/4 Hz (L300). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 8) (enamel, E and dentin, D). E and D surfaces were treated with the self-etching system Adper Prompt L-Pop and composite buildups were done with Filtek Z-250. Sticks with a cross-sectional area of 0.8 mm(2) (+/-0.2 mm(2)) were obtained and the bond strength tests were performed. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test. For morphological analysis, disks of 30 third molars were restored, sectioned and prepared for SEM. Dentin presented the highest values of adhesion, differing from enamel. Laser and air-abrasion preparations were similar to enamel. Dentin air-abrasion with standard tip group showed higher bond strength results than Er:YAG-laser groups, however, air-abrasion and Er:YAG laser groups were similar to control group. SEM micrographs revealed that, for both enamel and dentin, the air-abrasion and laser preparations presented irregular adhesive interfaces, different from the ones prepared by rotary instrument. It was concluded that cavity preparations accomplished by both Er:YAG laser energies and air abrasion tips did not positively influence the adhesion to enamel and dentin.
