多种表面处理方式及树脂水门汀类型对氧化锆陶瓷粘接强度的影响

Various surface treatment methods and resin cement type on the influence of bonding strength of zirconia ceramics

背景:因氧化锆陶瓷自身理化性能的稳定导致其可黏结性较差,这严重影响了氧化锆陶瓷修复体在临床中的应用。目的:分析不同表面处理方式与树脂水门汀对氧化锆陶瓷粘接强度的影响。方法:将240个氧化锆块随机分为16组,每组15个:A组处理方式为喷砂+氢氟酸+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0;B组为喷砂+氢氟酸+Monobond-s+Perma Cem-Dual;C组为喷砂+氢氟酸+新型硅烷偶联剂+Panavia F 2.0;D组为喷砂+氢氟酸+新型硅烷偶联剂+Perma Cem-Dual;E组为喷砂+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0;F组为喷砂+Monobond-s+Perma Cem-Dual;G组喷砂+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0树脂水门汀黏结剂;H组为喷砂+新型硅烷偶联剂+PermaCem-Dual;I组为氢氟酸+Monobond-s+PanaviaF2.0;J组为氢氟酸+Monobond-s+PermaCem-Dual;K组为氢氟酸+新型硅烷偶联剂+Panavia F 2.0;L组为氢氟酸+新型硅烷偶联剂+Perma Cem-Dual;M组为Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0;N组为Monobond-s+Perma Cem-Dual;O组为新型硅烷偶联剂+Panavia F 2.0;P组为新型硅烷偶联剂+Perma Cem-Dual。Panavia F 2.0与Perma Cem-Dual为树脂水门汀黏结剂,Monobond-s为商业用硅烷偶联剂。检测各组试件的粘接强度。结果与结论:①C、G、H组的粘接强度高于其余13组(P <0.05),A、B、C、D、E、F、G、H组的粘接强度高于I、J、K、L、M、N、P组(P <0.05);②结果表明,对氧化锆喷砂和新型硅烷偶联剂的联合使用可明显提高陶瓷-水门汀的粘接强度,氢氟酸预处理无效,而水门汀的种类的不同对粘接强度会有一定的影响。

BACKGROUND: Due to the stability of the physical and chemical properties of zirconia ceramics, its poor adhesiveness has seriously affected the clinical application of zirconia ceramic prosthesis.OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of different surface treatment methods and resin cement on the bonding strength of zirconia ceramics.METHODS: Totally 240 zirconia blocks were randomly divided into 16 groups, with 15 in each group. In group A, the treatment method was sandblasting+hydrofluoric acid+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0. In group B, the treatment method was sandblasting+hydrofluoric acid+Monobond-s+Perma CemDual. In group C, the treatment method was sandblasting+hydrofluoric acid+new silane coupling agent+Panavia F 2.0. In group D, the treatment method was sandblasting+hydrofluoric acid+new silane coupling agent+Perma Cem-Dual. In group E, the treatment method was sandblasting+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0. In group F, the treatment method was sandblasting+Monobond-s+Perma Cem-Dual. In group G, the treatment method was sandblasting+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0 resin cement binder. In group H, the treatment method was sandblasting+new silane coupling agent+Perma Cem-Dual. In group I, the treatment method was hydrofluoric acid+Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0. In group J, the treatment method was hydrofluoric acid+Monobond-s+Perma Cem-Dual. In group K, the treatment method was hydrofluoric acid+new silane coupling agent+Panavia F 2.0. In group L, the treatment method was hydrofluoric acid+new silane coupling agent+Perma Cem-Dual. In group M, the treatment method was Monobond-s+Panavia F 2.0. In group N, the treatment method was Monobond-s+Perma CemDual. In group O, the treatment method was new silane coupling agent+Panavia F 2.0. In group P, the treatment method was new silane coupling agent+Perma Cem-Dual. Panavia F 2.0 and Perma Cem-Dual were resin cement binders. Monobond-s was commercial silane coupling agent. The bonding strength of each group was tested. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:(1) The bonding strength of groups C, G and H was higher than that of the remaining 13 groups(P < 0.05). The bonding strength of groups A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H was higher than that of groups I, J, K, L, M, N, and P(P < 0.05).(2) The results show that the combined use of zirconia sandblasting and new silane coupling agent can significantly improve the bonding strength of ceramic-cement. Hydrofluoric acid pretreatment is ineffective. The different types of cement will have a certain effect on the bonding strength.