Influence of Varied Silane Commercial Brands and Adhesive Application on Bond Strength and Stability to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of various commercial silane brands with varied chemical compositions with or without the application of an adhesive layer on the microshear bond strength and durability of a resin luting agent to lithium disilicate glass ceramic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Lithium disilicate glass ceramic discs (EMX, IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) measuring 10 mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness were fabricated (n=240). Surfaces were etched using 5% hydrofluoric acid and randomly assigned to 10 groups based on the commercial brand of silane used (n=24): [RP] RelyX Ceramic Primer (3M ESPE); [PS] Prosil (FGM); [SA] Silano (Angelus); [SM] Silano (Maquira); [SU] Silane (Ultradent); [GL] GLUMA Ceramic Primer (Kulzer); [CB] Ceramic Bond (VOCO); [MB] Monobond N (Ivoclar Vivadent); [CP] Clearfil Ceramic Primer (Kuraray); and [DE] 2-step silane (Dentsply Sirona). Half of the EMXs (n=12) received a thin adhesive layer (+) after the silane and prior to resin luting agent, while the other half (n=12) did not receive an adhesive layer (-). For the microshear bond strength test (µSBS), four light-cured resin luting agent cylinders (1 mm in diameter) were created on each EMX surface. Half of these specimens were tested after 24 hours, while the other half were stored in deionized water for 6 months. The µSBS test was conducted using a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. The obtained data underwent statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey test (α=0.05). RESULTS: There was significant influence of the silane commercial brand on bond strength. Notably, "universal primers" yielded lower bond strength results compared to "pure" silane solutions. Water storage had a detrimental effect on microshear bond strength for certain silane commercial brands. Additionally, the application of an adhesive layer negatively impacted bond strength results for all silanes. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of both silane commercial brand and chemical composition in relation to bond strength of resin luting agents to lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Furthermore, the application of an adhesive layer may have an adverse effect on bond stability over time.

Effects of Hydrofluoric Acid Concentrations, Commercial Brands, and Adhesive Application on the Bond Strength of a Resin Luting Agent to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the surface topography/roughness and bond strength of a resin luting agent to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic after etching with different concentrations of hydrofluoric acid (HF) and commercial brands. METHODS: For bond strength evaluation, 260 lithium disilicate glass ceramic (EMX) discs were randomly distributed into 13 groups based on concentrations of HF and commercial brands (n=20): 5% and 10%, Lysanda (LY5 and LY10); 5% and 10%, Maquira (MA5 and MA10); 5% and 10%, FGM (FG5 and FG10); 4.8%, Ivoclar Vivadent (IV5); 5% and 10%, PHS do Brasil (PH5 and PH10); 5% and 10%, BM4 (BM5 and BM10); 9%, Ultradent Inc (UL10); and Dentsply (DE10). A further random distribution (n=10) was made based on the application (+) or absence (-) of an adhesive layer. Resin luting agent cylinders (1 mm in diameter) were added on EMX surfaces, light-cured, and stored for 24 hours in deionized water at 37°C. On a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC), specimens were submitted to a microshear bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure. A representative etched EMX disc from each group underwent surface topography analysis using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (n=1), and five (n=5) etched EMX discs from each group were tested for surface roughness. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey test (α=0.05). RESULTS: A less conditioned and smoother surface was observed for 5% HF compared to 10%. Additionally, commercial brands of HF were shown to affect bond strength. When the adhesive layer was not used (-), a 10% concentration promoted higher bond strengths to EMX. However, when adhesive was applied (+), the concentrations of HF and commercial brands had no effect on bond strength results. CONCLUSIONS: A 10% concentration of HF results in higher bond strength than a 5% concentration. If an adhesive layer is applied, neither this distinction nor the influence of commercial brands is observed.