We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry



Forgotten password?


J Adhes Dent 20 (2018), No. 3     13. July 2018
J Adhes Dent 20 (2018), No. 3  (13.07.2018)

Page 261-268, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a40632, PubMed:29904754

Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Tensile Bond Strength to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics
Lyann, Sai Kham / Takagaki, Tomohiro / Nikaido, Toru / Uo, Motohiro / Ikeda, Masaomi / Sadr, Alireza / Tagami, Junji
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of different surface treatments of lithium disilicate glass ceramics on the bonding efficacy of three luting composites.
Materials and Methods: A total of 450 blocks of e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) ground with 600-grit silicon carbide paper were prepared and divided into three groups (n = 150) according to the composite cements used: Variolink Esthetic DC (VE), Multilink Automix (MA), and SpeedCEM (SC). Each group was further divided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to the surface treatment performed: no treatment (control), Monobond Plus (MP), 37% phosphoric acid and Monobond Plus (PA), < 5% hydrofluoric acid and Monobond Plus (HF), and Monobond Etch & Prime (ME). All treated ceramic specimens were bonded with three composite cements and light cured. After 24-h water storage and 5000 or 10,000 thermocycles, tensile bond strength (TBS) was measured. The specimens underwent failure mode analysis. The results were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and t-tests with Bonferroni correction.
Results: The TBSs were significantly influenced by surface treatments (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in HF and ME among most of the groups. Furthermore, ME showed the highest bond strength with MA after 10,000 thermocycling. Most specimens of the ME groups exhibited cohesive failures, whereas a combination of adhesive failures and mixed failures were observed in control, MP, PA, and HF groups.
Conclusion: In the surface treatment of lithium disilicate glass ceramics, Monobond Etch & Prime was found to be a possible substitution for the combination of hydrofluoric acid and Monobond Plus.

Keywords: lithium disilicate ceramics, adhesion; tensile bond strength, thermocycling