Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.21916
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Resistência de união de diferentes cimentos resinosos a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio

Shear bond strenght between different resinous cements and lithium disilicate ceramic

Caroline Gomes MAZIOLI; Marcelo Massaroni PEÇANHA; Luiz Gustavo Dias DAROZ; Caíque ARAÚJO SIQUEIRA; May Anny Alves FRAGA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.21916 Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.46, n3, p.174-178, 2017
PDF
Downloads: 22
Views: 1209

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: O sucesso de restaurações indiretas depende de uma adequada união entre o cimento e o substrato dental. Portanto, a seleção e o conhecimento das características dos agentes cimentantes são importantes para a retenção da restauração indireta.

Objetivo: Avaliar a resistência de união de dois cimentos resinosos diferentes à cerâmica de dissilicato de lítio.

Metodologia: Dois grupos experimentais foram confeccionados: cimento resinoso convencional (Grupo CRC) e cimento resinoso autoadesivo (Grupo CRA). Para isso, dez discos de cerâmica de dissilicato de lítio (10 mm) foram pré-fabricados e, sobre cada disco, foram confeccionados quatro postes de cimento (0,7×1,0 mm), obtendo-se um total de 20 amostras de cada tipo de cimento. Os discos tiveram o mesmo tratamento de superfície para os dois grupos, que é padrão para as cerâmicas ricas em sílica, de acordo com o protocolo estabelecido pelo fabricante. As amostras foram submetidas ao teste de microcisalhamento para avaliar a resistência de união entre o cimento e a cerâmica. Posteriormente, o modo de falha foi analisado em microscópio ótico.

Resultado: Os dados obtidos foram submetidos a teste estatístico. Foi observado que o grupo CRC apresentou maiores valores de resistência de união (15,29 MPa) em relação ao grupo CRA (12,41 MPa). Na análise do modo de falha, nenhuma amostra obteve fratura do tipo adesiva. Em ambos os grupos, CRC (75%) e CRA (65%), obtiveram-se mais falhas do tipo mista, seguidas pela falha coesiva.

Conclusão: Ambos os cimentos apresentaram adesão à cerâmica. O cimento resinoso convencional apresentou maior adesão a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio que o cimento resinoso autoadesivo.

Palavras-chave

Cerâmicas, resistência ao cisalhamento, cimentação, cimentos de resina, prótese dentária

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The success of indirect restorations depends on the union between cement and dental substrate. Therefore, the selection and knowledge of the characteristics of cement is important for the retention of indirect restoration.

Objective: Is to evaluate the bond strength of two different resin cements to ceramic lithium disilicate.

Methodology: Two experimental groups were made: conventional resin cement (CRC Group) and self-adhesive resin cement (CRA Group). With this, 10 lithium disilicate ceramics discs (10 mm) were prefabricated and on each disc were made 04 cement posts (0.7×1.0 mm), yielding a total of 20 samples of each type of cement. The disks had the same surface treatment for both groups, which is standard for the rich silica ceramic according to the protocol established by the manufacturer. The samples were submitted to microshear test to evaluate the bond strength between the cement and ceramics. Subsequently, the fail mode was analyzed in an optical microscope.

Result: Data were subjected to statistical analysis. It was observed that the CRC group had a higher bond strength (15.29 MPa) compared to CRA group (12.41 MPa). In the analysis of fail mode, neither samples obtained adhesive fracture. In both groups, CRC (75%) and CRA (65%) it was obtained more failures of the mixed type, followed by the cohesive failure.

Conclusion: Both cements showed adhesion on ceramic. The conventional resin cement showed better adherence to the ceramic base of lithium disilicate than the self-adhesive resin cement.

Keywords

Ceramics, shear strength, cementation, resin cements, dental prosthesis

References

Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Bertelli E, Davidson CL, Ferrari M. A clinical trial of Empress II porcelain inlays luted to vital teeth with a dual-curing adhesive system and a self- curing resin cement. J Adhes Dent. 2006 Dec;8(6):427-31. PMid:17243601.

Haddad MF, Rocha EP, Assunção WG. Cementation of prosthetic restorations: from conventional cementation to dental bonding concept. J Craniofac Surg. 2011 May;22(3):952-8. PMid:21558917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31820fe205.

Aboushelib MN, Sleem D. Microtensile bond strength of lithium disilicate ceramics to resin adhesives. J Adhes Dent. 2014 Dec;16(6):547-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a33249. PMid:25516886.

Kumari RV, Poluri RK, Nagaraj H, Siddaruju K. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of dual-cured resin cements: an in-vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(Supl 1):43-7. PMid:26225104.

Xuan GH, Wang HH. The effect of acid etching on bond strength of different self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2015 Jun;24(3):302-6. PMid:26166517.

Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2008 Aug;10(4):251-8. PMid:18792695.

Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater. 2001 Nov;17(6):542-56. PMid:11567693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00016-1.

Gerth HU, Dammaschke T, Zuchner H, Schafer E. Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites – a comparative study. Dent Mater. 2006 Oct;22(10):934-41. PMid:16364427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.004.

Takenaka H, Ouchi H, Sai K, Kawamoto R, Murayama R, Kurokawa K, et al. Ultrasonic measurement of the effects of light irradiation and presence of water on the polymerization of self-adhesive resin cement. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015 Oct;123(5):369-74. PMid:26274334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eos.12205.

Burgess JO, Ghuman T, Cakir D. Self-adhesive resin cements. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010 Dec;22(6):412-9. PMid:21171499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00378.x.

Varjão FM, Schalch MV, Fonseca RG, Adabo GL. Tratamento de superfície de restaurações estéticas indiretas para cimentação adesiva. RGO. 2004 Jul-Set;52(3):145-9.

Lüthy H, Loeffel O, Hammerle CH. Effect of thermocycling on bond strength of luting cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 2006 Feb;22(2):195-200. PMid:16143382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.016.

Blatz MB, Phark JH, Ozer F, Mante FK, Saleh N, Bergler M, et al. In vitro comparative bond strength of contemporary self-adhesive resin cements to zirconium oxide ceramic with and without air-particle abrasion. Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Apr;14(2):187-92. PMid:19415350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0278-0.

Goracci C, Cury AH, Cantoro A, Papacchini F, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Microtensile bond strength and interfacial properties of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements used to lute composite onlays under different seating forces. J Adhes Dent. 2006 Nov;8(5):327-35. PMid:17080881.

Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt K, Maida T, et al. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 2007 Jan;23(1):71-80. PMid:16426673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.12.002.

Sander RF, Prates LHM, Chain MC, Clavo MCM. Resistência de união ao cisalhamento de cimentos resinosos autocondicionantes à dentina. Rev Clin Pesq Odontol. 2009 Set-Dez;5(3):273-9.

Lührs AK, Guhr S, Gunay H, Geurtsen W. Shear bond strength of self-adhesive resins compared to resin cements with etch and rinse adhesives to enamel and dentin in vitro. Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Apr;14(2):193-9. PMid:19430821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0279-z.

Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Sep;92(3):265-73. PMid:15343162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.027.

Taschner M, Frankenberger R, García-Godoy F, Rosenbusch S, Petschelt A, Krämer N. IPS Empress inlays luted with a self-adhesive resin cement after 1 year. Am J Dent. 2009 Feb;22(1):55-9. PMid:19281114.

Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Flury S. Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents. Oper Dent. 2011 May-Jun;36(3):266-73. PMid:21740244. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/10-236-L.

Türkmen C, Durkan M, Cimilli H, Oksuz M. Tensile bond strength of indirect composites luted with three new self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011 Jul-Aug;19(4):363-9. PMid:21710095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011005000011.

Hitz T, Stawarczyk B, Fischer J, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. Are self-adhesive resin cements a valid alternative to conventional resin cements? A laboratory study of the long-term bond strength. Dent Mater. 2012 Nov;28(11):1183-90. PMid:22999370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.006.
 

595a31000e8825114780248e rou Articles
Links & Downloads
1807-2577 (Electronic)
Rev. odontol. UNESP ©2024 All rights reserved.

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections