Four-point flexural strength and microtensile bond strength of digitally and conventionally veneered zirconia.

This study intended to evaluate the effect of digital veneering on four-point flexural strength (FS) and microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of veneered zirconia. Two different zirconia blocks, a lithium disilicate and a feldspathic ceramic block, and two different layering ceramics were used. IPS e.max Zir CAD (ZC) and Vita In-Ceram YZ (YZ) with yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (3Y-TZP) were used as substructures. IPS e.max CAD (LD), Vita Mark II (VMII), IPS e.max Ceram (EC) and Vita VM9 (VM9) were used for veneering. Resin cement and fusion ceramic were placed between veneer and zirconia substructure for digital veneering. A total of one hundred and fifty specimens in five groups (n = 30) were prepared for FS and tested in universal machine at 1.0 mm/min. One hundred specimens in five groups (n = 20) were obtained for the µTBS and tested at 1.0 mm/min. Statistical analysis was made by one way ANOVA and Tukey HSD. Conventional veneering showed statistically significant FS. ZC veneered with EC had the highest mean FS and the lowest was obtained in groups veneered through resin cement. YZ layered with VM9 had the highest mean µTBS. ZC veneered through fusion ceramic and YZ veneered through resin cement showed significantly lower and similar µTBS.

Surface Roughness of Ceramic-Resin Composites After Femtosecond Laser Irradiation, Sandblasting or Acid Etching and Their Bond Strength With and Without Silanization to a Resin Cement.

OBJECTIVES:: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of femtosecond laser irradiation, sandblasting, or acid etching treatments on the surface roughness of ceramic-resin composites and also shear bond strength (SBS) with and without silanization to a resin cement. METHODS:: Samples of Vita Enamic (VE; Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) and Lava Ultimate (LU; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) were classified into control (no treatment), sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid, and femtosecond laser groups (n=30). Surface roughness was determined using two-dimensional contact profilometry. Surface topography was evaluated using a three-dimensional contact profilometer and a scanning electron microscope. Then groups were divided into two subgroups with similar surface roughness values, including control (C), control + silane (C-S), sandblasting (SB), sandblasting + silane (SB-S), hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF-S), femtosecond laser (FS), and femtosecond laser + silane (FS-S) groups (n=15). Panavia F 2.0 resin cement was applied to the sample surfaces using an SDI SBS rig (SDI Limited, Bayswater, Australia). The SBS test was performed after water storage (24 h, 37°C) and thermocycles (2000 cycles, 5°C to 55°C), and failure modes were evaluated. RESULTS:: The highest surface roughness was observed in the FS group, and the highest SBS was observed in the FS-S group for both VE and LU ( p<0.001). Silanization improved the SBS of VE significantly ( p<0.001) in all surface treatments but did not improve that of LU except in the FS group ( p=0.004). There was a significantly moderate negative correlation in the VE/SB group ( p=0.012) and a moderate positive correlation in the VE/HF group ( p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS:: Femtosecond laser irradiation was found to be more effective than sandblasting or acid etching in increasing the surface roughness, and it was also the most effective surface treatment with silanization on the SBS of a resin cement to the ceramic-resin composites.

Changing the bonding force of impression tray to edentulous maxillary jaw simulator with impression valve system: in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an impression valve system (IVS) on the bonding force between an impression tray and an edentulous maxillary jaw. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, a polyether-coated maxillary jaw simulator (PM) was used to model an edentulous maxillary jaw. The IVS was placed into individual impression trays. An irreversible hydrocolloid impression was taken of the PM when the IVS was open and closed. The impression tray bonding force was measured using a digital dynamometer. Student's t-test was used to determine the significance of the difference between these two groups. RESULTS: The impression tray was more easily separated from the PM when the IVS was open (108 ± 3.9 N). The separation was more difficult when the IVS was closed (153.7 ± 14.2 N). The difference between these two findings (P = 0.000) was significant. CONCLUSION: The use of an IVS facilitates the removal of the impression tray from the mouth when taking impressions from an edentulous maxillary jaw.