The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Surface treatment of feldspathic porcelain: scanning electron microscopy analysis

  • Valian, Azam (Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Moravej-Salehi, Elham (Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2014.02.12
  • Accepted : 2014.07.08
  • Published : 2014.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Topographic analysis of treated ceramics provides qualitative information regarding the surface texture affecting the micromechanical retention and locking of resin-ceramics. This study aims to compare the surface microstructure following different surface treatments of feldspathic porcelain. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This in-vitro study was conducted on 72 porcelain discs randomly divided into 12 groups (n=6). In 9 groups, feldspathic surfaces were subjected to sandblasting at 2, 3 or 4 bar pressure for 5, 10 or 15 seconds with $50{\mu}m$ alumina particles at a 5 mm distance. In group 10, 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) gel was applied for 120 seconds. In group 11, specimens were sandblasted at 3 bar pressure for 10 seconds and then conditioned with HF. In group 12, specimens were first treated with HF and then sandblasted at 3 bar pressure for 10 seconds. All specimens were then evaluated under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at different magnifications. RESULTS. SEM images of HF treated specimens revealed deep porosities of variable sizes; whereas, the sandblasted surfaces were more homogenous and had sharper peaks. Increasing the pressure and duration of sandblasting increased the surface roughness. SEM images of the two combined techniques showed that in group 11 (sandblasted first), HF caused deeper porosities; whereas in group 12 (treated with HF first) sandblasting caused irregularities with less homogeneity. CONCLUSION. All surface treatments increased the surface area and caused porous surfaces. In groups subjected to HF, the porosities were deeper than those in sandblasted only groups.

Keywords

References

  1. Leinfelder KF. Dentin adhesives for the twenty-first century. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:1-6.
  2. Kukiattrakoon B, Thammasitboon K. Optimal acidulated phosphate fluoride gel etching time for surface treatment of feldspathic porcelain: on shear bond strength to resin composite. Eur J Dent 2012;6:63-9.
  3. Gokce B. Effects of Er: YAG laser irradiation on dental hard tissues and all-ceramic materials: SEM evaluation. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/scanning-electronmicroscopy/ effects-of-laser-irradiation-on-dental-hard-tissues- and-dental-materials-sem-evaluation-at 12 September,2014.
  4. Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Vaccaro F, Traini T, Russo S, Ferrari M. Acid etching surface treatment of feldspathic, alumina and zirconia ceramics: a micromorphological SEM analysis. Int Dent South Afr 2006;8:20-6.
  5. Torres SM, Borges GA, Spohr AM, Cury AA, Yadav S, Platt JA. The effect of surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength of a resin luting agent and four all-ceramic systems. Oper Dent 2009;34:399-407. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-87
  6. de Carvalho RF, Martins ME, de Queiroz JR, Leite FP, Ozcan M. Influence of silane heat treatment on bond strength of resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic. Dent Mater J 2011;30:392-7. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2010-137
  7. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:268-74. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.50
  8. Kelly JR. Dental ceramics: what is this stuff anyway? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:4S-7S.
  9. Vargas MA, Bergeron C, Diaz-Arnold A. Cementing all-ceramic restorations: recommendations for success. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:20S-4S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0339
  10. de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Braz Dent J 2007;18:314-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402007000400008
  11. El-Hosary MMK, Shokry TE, Zaki DY, El-Shakour ASA. Bond strength of different intraoral repair systems for metalceramic restorations. J Am Sci 2011; 7:383-8.
  12. Reston EG, Filho SC, Arossi G, Cogo RB, Rocha Cdos S, Closs LQ. Repairing ceramic restorations: final solution or alternative procedure? Oper Dent 2008;33:461-6. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-151
  13. Falkensammer F, Jonke E, Bertl M, Freudenthaler J, Bantleon HP. Rebonding performance of different ceramic brackets conditioned with a new silane coupling agent. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:103-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr090
  14. Yadav S, Upadhyay M, Borges GA, Roberts WE. Influence of ceramic (feldspathic) surface treatments on the microshear bond strength of composite resin. Angle Orthod 2010;80:577-82.
  15. Ersu B, Yuzugullu B, Ruya Yazici A, Canay S. Surface rough-ness and bond strengths of glass-infiltrated alumina-ceramics prepared using various surface treatments. J Dent 2009;37: 848-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.06.017
  16. Osorio E, Toledano M, da Silveira BL, Osorio R. Effect of different surface treatments on In-Ceram Alumina roughness. An AFM study. J Dent 2010;38:118-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.09.010
  17. Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:119-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90294-2
  18. Pollington S, Fabianelli A, van Noort R. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to a novel fluorcanasite glass-ceramic following different surface treatments. Dent Mater 2010;26:864-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.04.011
  19. Barghi N, Fischer DE, Vatani L. Effects of porcelain leucite content, types of etchants, and etching time on porcelaincomposite bond. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006;18:47-52. https://doi.org/10.2310/6130.2006.00001
  20. Kara HB, Dilber E, Koc O, Ozturk AN, Bulbul M. Effect of different surface treatments on roughness of IPS Empress 2 ceramic. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:267-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-010-0860-3
  21. Retief DH. Standardizing laboratory adhesion tests. Am J Dent 1991;4:231-6.
  22. Della Bona A, Donassollo TA, Demarco FF, Barrett AA, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Characterization and surface treatment effects on topography of a glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconiareinforced ceramic. Dent Mater 2007;23:769-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.043
  23. Darvell BW. Materials science for dentistry. 9th ed. Elsevier, UK; 2009. p. 450-70.
  24. Amin Salehi E, Heshmat H, Moravej Salehi E, Kharazifard M. In vitro evaluation of the effect of different sandblasting times on the bond strength of feldspathic porcelain to composite resin. J Islam Dent Assoc IRAN 2013;25:22-30.
  25. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ. Microstructure, composition, and etching topography of dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:159-67.
  26. Subasi MG, Inan O. Evaluation of the topographical surface changes and roughness of zirconia after different surface treatments. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:735-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-011-0965-3
  27. Bottino MC, Ozcan M, Coelho PG, Valandro LF, Bressiani JC, Bressiani AH. Micro-morphological changes prior to adhesive bonding: high-alumina and glassy-matrix ceramics. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:158-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000200011
  28. Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, Turk T. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic. Angle Orthod 2007;77:723-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/062206-256.1
  29. Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, Chan DC. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:479-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(02)52704-9
  30. Dilber E, Yavuz T, Kara HB, Ozturk AN. Comparison of the effects of surface treatments on roughness of two ceramic systems. Photomed Laser Surg 2012;30:308-14. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2011.3153
  31. Cal-Neto JP, Castro S, Moura PM, Ribeiro D, Miguel JA. Influence of enamel sandblasting prior to etching on shear bond strength of indirectly bonded lingual appliances. Angle Orthod 2011;81:149-52. https://doi.org/10.2319/050210-237.1
  32. Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:194-203. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01037.x
  33. Kulunk S, Kulunk T, Ural C, Kurt M, Baba S. Effect of air abrasion particles on the bond strength of adhesive resin cement to zirconia core. Acta Odontol Scand 2011;69:88-94. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2010.536907
  34. Yavuz T, Dilber E, Kara HB, Tuncdemir AR, Ozturk AN. Effects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength in two different ceramic systems. Lasers Med Sci 2013;28:1233-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-012-1201-5
  35. Schmage P, Nergiz I, Herrmann W, Ozcan M. Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:540-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)56911-0
  36. Wood DJ, Bubb NL, Millar BJ, Dunne SM. Preliminary investigation of a novel retentive system for hydrofluoric acid etch-resistant dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:275-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70026-X
  37. Torres SM, Borges GA, Spohr AM, Cury AA, Yadav S, Platt JA. The effect of surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength of a resin luting agent and four all-ceramic systems. Oper Dent 2009;34:399-407. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-87
  38. Sarac YS, Kulunk T, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, Turk T. Effects of surface-conditioning methods on shear bond strength of brackets bonded to different all-ceramic materials. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:667-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq132
  39. Lacy AM, LaLuz J, Watanabe LG, Dellinges M. Effect of porcelain surface treatment on the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:288-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90270-3
  40. Falkensammer F, Freudenthaler J, Pseiner B, Bantleon HP. Influence of surface conditioning on ceramic microstructure and bracket adhesion. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:498-504. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr034
  41. Kern M, Barloi A, Yang B. Surface conditioning influences zirconia ceramic bonding. J Dent Res 2009;88:817-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509340881
  42. Herion DT, Ferracane JL, Covell DA Jr. Porcelain surface alterations and refinishing after use of two orthodontic bonding methods. Angle Orthod 2010;80:167-74. https://doi.org/10.2319/010909-19.1
  43. Turk T, Sarac D, Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turk S. Effects of surface conditioning on bond strength of metal brackets to allceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:450-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl010
  44. Kara HB, Ozturk AN, Aykent F, Koc O, Ozturk B. The effect of different surface treatments on roughness and bond strength in low fusing ceramics. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26:599-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-010-0806-9
  45. Zogheib LV, Bona AD, Kimpara ET, McCabe JF. Effect of hydrofluoric acid etching duration on the roughness and flexural strength of a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic. Braz Dent J 2011;22:45-50. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402011000100008
  46. Loomans BA, Mine A, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, Van Meerbeek B. Hydrofluoric acid on dentin should be avoided. Dent Mater 2010;26:643-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.007
  47. Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Papacchini F, Goracci C, Cantoro A, Ferrari M, van Noort R. The effect of different surface treatments on bond strength between leucite reinforced feldspathic ceramic and composite resin. J Dent 2010;38:39-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.08.010

Cited by

  1. Surface topography and bond strengths of feldspathic porcelain prepared using various sandblasting pressures vol.7, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12171
  2. Effect of Two Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness, Topography, and Flexural Strength of a Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic pp.1059941X, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12586
  3. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to surface-treated feldspathic porcelain after thermocycling vol.41, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/0391398818756181
  4. Shear bond strengths of six different porcelain laminate veneer materials cemented to enamel with two different MDP-containing resin cements vol.29, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2015.1016597
  5. Nd:Yag Laser to obtain Irregularities on the Inner Surface of Porcelain vol.16, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1705
  6. Microshear bond strength of self-adhesive composite to ceramic after mechanical, chemical and laser surface treatments vol.26, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.17-or-19
  7. Bond strength between composite repair and polymer‐infiltrated ceramic‐network material: Effect of different surface treatments vol.31, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12445
  8. In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Different Surface Treatments of a Hybrid Ceramic on the Microtensile Bond Strength to a Luting Resin Cement vol.10, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2019.48
  9. The critical bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to dental glass-ceramics vol.23, pp.12, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02881-5
  10. The Effect of Thermocycling and Surface Treatments on the Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Three Heat-Pressed Ceramics Systems vol.10, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst10030160
  11. The Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nanocomposites: Contact Profilometry and SEM Analyses vol.46, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2341/20-157-l
  12. Contemporary Approach to the Porosity of Dental Materials and Methods of Its Measurement vol.22, pp.16, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168903