Journal of Dental Medicine

Statement of Problem: Porcelain restorations are susceptible to fracture and a common method for repairing is the use of silane and composite on etched porcelain. Although HF is very effective in porcelain etching but has detrimental effects on tissues.

Purpose: In this study, the effect of APF and PHA was compared with HF in porcelain etching. Also the role of silane, unfilled resin and dentin bonding in bond strength of composite- porcelain was evaluated.

Methods and Materials: In this experimental in-vitro study, one-hundred twenty porcelain square blocks (552 mm) were prepared and bonding surfaces of each sandblasted. Samples were divided into three groups. The first group (n=40) were etched with buffered HF 9.5% (Ultradent) for 1 min., the second group (n=40) were etched with Iranian APF 1.23% (Kimia) for 10 minutes and the third group (n=40) were etched with Iranian PHA 37% (Kimia) for 1 min. Ultradent silane was applied on the surfaces of half of cases in each group. On the surfaces of half of silane-treated samples unfilled resin was applied and dentin bonding was used on the surfaces of the remaining. Samples without silane were treated in a similar manner. Composite cylinder with 4mm diameter and 2 mm height was bonded to porcelain. Specimens were stored in 37°C distilled water for 24 hours and subjected to 500 cycles. Shear bond strength was measured with an Instron machine and type of fracture was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Results were analyzed using 3 way ANOVA, Kaplan- Maier and Tukey HSD tests.

Results: Findings showed that PHA and APF roughened the porcelain surface without creating retentive micro undercuts but HF etches porcelain and creates retentive microundercuts. Ultradent silane had no significant effect on bond strength of porcelain- composite. Unfilled resin with Ultradent silane compared with dentin bonding with the same silane is more effective in bond strength of composite- porcelain.

Conclusion: Based on present study, application of Ultradent silane on sandblasted and etched porcelain with PHA or APF cannot be used as an alternative to this silane on sandblasted and etched porcelain with HF.

Background and Aims: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to dental porcelain on the basis of presence or absence of silane, type of acid [hydrofluoric acid (HF) or phosphoric acid (H3PO4)] and roughness of porcelain surface (glazed or deglazed) within mouth-like environment.
Materials and Methods: Eighty glazed ceramic disks were randomly divided into 8 groups of 10 disks: group 1 [HF+silane], group 2 [deglazed+HF+silane], group 3 [HF], group 4 [deglazed+HF], group 5 [H3PO4+silane], group 6 [deglazed+H3PO4+silane], group 7 [H3PO4], group 8 [deglazed+H3PO4]. Then the brackets were bonded and thermocycled. After that, shear bond strength test was done using the Zwick device and the type of bond failure was determined under stereomicroscope at 4X magnification. 3-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis were used for statistical analyses.
Results: The shear bond strength for the test groups were as follows: group (1):13.05±7.7 MPa , group (2):25.16±10.66 MPa, group (3):6.7±5.86 MPa, group (4):15.39±8.97 MPa, group (5):12.76±7.91 MPa, group (6):13.57±7.85 MPa, group (7):0.54±0.67 MPa, group (8): 9.34±6.52 MPa. The type of bond failure in all groups was adhesive failure except for group 2. No significant difference in the interaction between (glazed or deglazed), (presence or absence of silane), and type of acid was found (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Under the conditions of this study, the best clinical method was the use of 37% phosphoric acid and silane that resulted in the optimal clinical strength and adhesive bond failure.