Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Which surface treatment promotes higher bond strength for the repair of resin nanoceramics and polymer-infiltrated ceramics? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Moura, Dayanne Monielle D; Veríssimo, Aretha Heitor; Leite Vila-Nova, Taciana Emília; Calderon, Patrícia Santos; Özcan, Mutlu; Assunção Souza, Rodrigo Othávio.
Afiliación
  • Moura DMD; PhD student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
  • Veríssimo AH; PhD student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
  • Leite Vila-Nova TE; PhD student, School of dentistry, University of Pernambuco-UPE, Recife, PE, Brazil.
  • Calderon PS; Adjunct Professor, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
  • Özcan M; Professor, Division of Dental Biomaterials Unit, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Assunção Souza RO; Adjunct Professor, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil. Electronic address: rodrigoothavio@gmail.com.
J Prosthet Dent ; 128(2): 139-149, 2022 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33573835
ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF

PROBLEM:

Which surface treatment provides the optimal bond strength (BS) for the repair of resin nanoceramics (RNCs) and polymer-infiltrated ceramics (PICs) is unclear.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies was to determine the best surface treatment protocols for the repair of PICs and RNCs. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched to select in vitro studies in English up to March 2020. Studies with fewer than 5 specimens, those that did not evaluate the BS of PICs or RNCs, and those with aging for fewer than 30 days and 5000 cycles were excluded. Data sets were extracted, and the mean differences were analyzed by using a systematic review software program.

RESULTS:

Among 284 potentially eligible studies, 21 were selected for full-text analysis, and 9 were included in the systematic review, of which 6 were used in the meta-analysis. The meta-analyses were performed for each treatment surface versus their respective control group and their combinations according to

material:

RNCs and PICs. For RNCs, airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) treatment was statistically higher than tribochemical silica airborne-particle abrasion (CoJet) (P=.02, I2=90%) and that in the hydrofluoric acid (HF) (P<.001, I2=0%) groups and was statistically similar to diamond rotary instrument grinding (P=.40, I2=54%). For PICs, the treatment with hydrofluoric acid (HF) was statistically significantly higher than with CoJet (P=.03, I2=62%) and airborne-particle abrasion with Al2O3 (P<.001, I2=98%).

CONCLUSIONS:

The best surface treatment protocol for repair varied according to the restorative material. HF followed by silanization is suggested for PICs, and airborne-particle abrasion with Al2O3 or preparation with a diamond rotary instrument for RNCs.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo / Cementos de Resina Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Prosthet Dent Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo / Cementos de Resina Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Prosthet Dent Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil