Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: da Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantas
Data de Publicação: 2024
Outros Autores: da Silva, Sarah Emille Gomes, da Silva, Nathália Ramos, de Moreira, Fernanda Gurgel Gois, Souza, Karina Barbosa [UNESP], Zhang, Yu, de Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13929
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/309031
Resumo: Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the miniflexural strength (MFS) of monolithic zirconia. Materials and Methods: Two-hundred and forty (240) sintered bars of translucent zirconia (ZT) and ultra-translucent zirconia (ZUT) were obtained (8 mm ×2 mm ×1 mm). The bars were divided into 16 groups (n = 15) according to the factors “Zirconia” (ZT and ZUT), “Cementation” (Cem) and “surface treatment” (Ctrl:Control, Al:Aluminum oxide/Al2O3 50 µm, Si:Silica/SiO2 coated alumina particles oxide 30 µm, Gl:Glazing+hydrofluoric acid). Half of the bars received an adhesive layer application, followed by application of resin cement and light curing. The surface roughness was measured in non-cemented groups. All the bars were subjected to the MFS test (1.0 mm/min; 100 kgf). Scanning electron microscopy was used for qualitative analyses. MFS data (MPa) and roughness (µm) were statistically evaluated by three-way and two-way ANOVA respectively and Tukey's test (5%). Results: The surface treatment and the interaction were significant for roughness. Glazing promoted less roughness compared to silicatization. Regarding MFS, only the zirconia and surface treatment factors were significant. For ZT, the sandblasted groups had an increase in MFS and glazing reduced it. There was no difference between the groups without cementation for the ZUT; however, ZUT.Si/Cem, and ZUT.Al/Cem obtained superior MFS among the cemented groups. Conclusions: Sandblasting increases the flexural strength for ZT, while glaze application tends to reduce it. Applying resin cement increases the flexural strength of ZUT when associated with sandblasting. Sandblasting protocols promote greater surface roughness.
id UNSP_da6a69736bf14ba97b08d69a9bbbc8b9
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/309031
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconiaflexural strengthresin cementsandblastingsurface treatmentzirconiaPurpose: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the miniflexural strength (MFS) of monolithic zirconia. Materials and Methods: Two-hundred and forty (240) sintered bars of translucent zirconia (ZT) and ultra-translucent zirconia (ZUT) were obtained (8 mm ×2 mm ×1 mm). The bars were divided into 16 groups (n = 15) according to the factors “Zirconia” (ZT and ZUT), “Cementation” (Cem) and “surface treatment” (Ctrl:Control, Al:Aluminum oxide/Al2O3 50 µm, Si:Silica/SiO2 coated alumina particles oxide 30 µm, Gl:Glazing+hydrofluoric acid). Half of the bars received an adhesive layer application, followed by application of resin cement and light curing. The surface roughness was measured in non-cemented groups. All the bars were subjected to the MFS test (1.0 mm/min; 100 kgf). Scanning electron microscopy was used for qualitative analyses. MFS data (MPa) and roughness (µm) were statistically evaluated by three-way and two-way ANOVA respectively and Tukey's test (5%). Results: The surface treatment and the interaction were significant for roughness. Glazing promoted less roughness compared to silicatization. Regarding MFS, only the zirconia and surface treatment factors were significant. For ZT, the sandblasted groups had an increase in MFS and glazing reduced it. There was no difference between the groups without cementation for the ZUT; however, ZUT.Si/Cem, and ZUT.Al/Cem obtained superior MFS among the cemented groups. Conclusions: Sandblasting increases the flexural strength for ZT, while glaze application tends to reduce it. Applying resin cement increases the flexural strength of ZUT when associated with sandblasting. Sandblasting protocols promote greater surface roughness.Department of Dentistry Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Rio Grande do NorteInstitute of Science and Technology Paulista State University (UNESP), São PauloDepartment of Preventive and Restorative University of Pennsylvania School of Dental MedicineDepartment of Dentistry Adjunct in Prosthodontics Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Rio Grande do NorteInstitute of Science and Technology Paulista State University (UNESP), São PauloFederal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)School of Dental Medicineda Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantasda Silva, Sarah Emille Gomesda Silva, Nathália Ramosde Moreira, Fernanda Gurgel GoisSouza, Karina Barbosa [UNESP]Zhang, Yude Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção2025-04-29T20:14:17Z2024-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13929Journal of Prosthodontics.1532-849X1059-941Xhttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/30903110.1111/jopr.139292-s2.0-85202036348Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Prosthodonticsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-04-30T13:36:10Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/309031Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462025-04-30T13:36:10Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
title Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
spellingShingle Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
da Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantas
flexural strength
resin cement
sandblasting
surface treatment
zirconia
title_short Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
title_full Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
title_fullStr Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
title_full_unstemmed Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
title_sort Effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the surface topography and flexural strength of translucent and ultra-translucent monolithic zirconia
author da Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantas
author_facet da Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantas
da Silva, Sarah Emille Gomes
da Silva, Nathália Ramos
de Moreira, Fernanda Gurgel Gois
Souza, Karina Barbosa [UNESP]
Zhang, Yu
de Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção
author_role author
author2 da Silva, Sarah Emille Gomes
da Silva, Nathália Ramos
de Moreira, Fernanda Gurgel Gois
Souza, Karina Barbosa [UNESP]
Zhang, Yu
de Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
School of Dental Medicine
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv da Silva, Bianca Cristina Dantas
da Silva, Sarah Emille Gomes
da Silva, Nathália Ramos
de Moreira, Fernanda Gurgel Gois
Souza, Karina Barbosa [UNESP]
Zhang, Yu
de Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv flexural strength
resin cement
sandblasting
surface treatment
zirconia
topic flexural strength
resin cement
sandblasting
surface treatment
zirconia
description Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesive cementation on the miniflexural strength (MFS) of monolithic zirconia. Materials and Methods: Two-hundred and forty (240) sintered bars of translucent zirconia (ZT) and ultra-translucent zirconia (ZUT) were obtained (8 mm ×2 mm ×1 mm). The bars were divided into 16 groups (n = 15) according to the factors “Zirconia” (ZT and ZUT), “Cementation” (Cem) and “surface treatment” (Ctrl:Control, Al:Aluminum oxide/Al2O3 50 µm, Si:Silica/SiO2 coated alumina particles oxide 30 µm, Gl:Glazing+hydrofluoric acid). Half of the bars received an adhesive layer application, followed by application of resin cement and light curing. The surface roughness was measured in non-cemented groups. All the bars were subjected to the MFS test (1.0 mm/min; 100 kgf). Scanning electron microscopy was used for qualitative analyses. MFS data (MPa) and roughness (µm) were statistically evaluated by three-way and two-way ANOVA respectively and Tukey's test (5%). Results: The surface treatment and the interaction were significant for roughness. Glazing promoted less roughness compared to silicatization. Regarding MFS, only the zirconia and surface treatment factors were significant. For ZT, the sandblasted groups had an increase in MFS and glazing reduced it. There was no difference between the groups without cementation for the ZUT; however, ZUT.Si/Cem, and ZUT.Al/Cem obtained superior MFS among the cemented groups. Conclusions: Sandblasting increases the flexural strength for ZT, while glaze application tends to reduce it. Applying resin cement increases the flexural strength of ZUT when associated with sandblasting. Sandblasting protocols promote greater surface roughness.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-01-01
2025-04-29T20:14:17Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13929
Journal of Prosthodontics.
1532-849X
1059-941X
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/309031
10.1111/jopr.13929
2-s2.0-85202036348
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13929
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/309031
identifier_str_mv Journal of Prosthodontics.
1532-849X
1059-941X
10.1111/jopr.13929
2-s2.0-85202036348
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Prosthodontics
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1854949254157565952