Effect of erosive and abrasive challenges on the glaze layer applied to ceramic materials.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the effect of erosive, abrasive, and erosive/abrasive challenges on the glaze layer of ceramic materials. METHODS: Ninety-five samples of monolithic zirconia (MZ) (LuxaCam Zircon HT-Plus) and lithium disilicate (LD) (IPS e.max CAD) were divided according to the response variables: Surface roughness and surface loss (n = 10), evaluated with optical profilometry; surface topography, with scanning electron microscopy SEM (n = 3); and biofilm deposition, with microbiological assay (n = 5). The evaluations were performed in three different time evaluations: (a) Sintered, (b) Glaze, and (c) Challenge (Erosion, Abrasion, and Erosion/Abrasion). Erosion consisted in immersing specimens in HCl solution, abrasion was performed with brushing machine, and erosion/abrasion consisted of a combination of the two previous protocols. Data were analyzed with parametric tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: MZ glaze layer presented significantly higher surface roughness (P = 0.00), surface loss (P = 0.03), and biofilm deposition (P = 0.00) than LD. Abrasion and erosion/abrasion showed similar outcomes, generating significantly higher surface roughness (P = 0.00), surface loss (P = 0.00), and biofilm deposition (P = 0.01) than erosion. CONCLUSIONS: Glaze layer properties were altered by the challenges, with abrasion and erosion/abrasion generating higher surface roughness, surface loss, and biofilm deposition than erosion. A significant correlation was found between the surface roughness and biofilm deposition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The glaze layer is susceptible to challenges, especially to abrasion and erosion/abrasion, which generated greater surface roughness and surface loss than erosion. The greater surface roughness lead to a greater biofilm deposition on the glaze layer.

Bonding efficiency and durability: current possibilities.

Bonding plays a major role in dentistry nowadays. Dental adhesives are used in association with composites to solve many restorative issues. However, the wide variety of bonding agents currently available makes it difficult for clinicians to choose the best alternative in terms of material and technique, especially when different clinical situations are considered. Moreover, although bonding agents allow for a more conservative restorative approach, achieving a durable adhesive interface remains a matter of concern, and this mainly due to degradation of the bonding complex in the challenging oral environment. This review aims to present strategies that are being used or those still in development which may help to prevent degradation. It is fundamental that professionals are aware of these strategies to counteract degradation as much as possible. None of them are efficient to completely solve this problem, but they certainly represent reasonable alternatives to increase the lifetime of adhesive restorations.

Bonding efficiency and durability: current possibilities

Abstract Bonding plays a major role in dentistry nowadays. Dental adhesives are used in association with composites to solve many restorative issues. However, the wide variety of bonding agents currently available makes it difficult for clinicians to choose the best alternative in terms of material and technique, especially when different clinical situations are considered. Moreover, although bonding agents allow for a more conservative restorative approach, achieving a durable adhesive interface remains a matter of concern, and this mainly due to degradation of the bonding complex in the challenging oral environment. This review aims to present strategies that are being used or those still in development which may help to prevent degradation. It is fundamental that professionals are aware of these strategies to counteract degradation as much as possible. None of them are efficient to completely solve this problem, but they certainly represent reasonable alternatives to increase the lifetime of adhesive restorations.