Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of sandblasting distance and angles resin to zirconia and titanium bonding.
Methods: Densely sintered zirconia and cp2 titanium specimens were prepared and randomly divided into groups, and then sandblasted with various distance (5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm) and angles (45°, 60°, 75° and 90°). After surface treatment, each specimen surface underwent a silane primer application (RelyX, 3M ESPE), followed by bonding of a resin cement (RelyX Unicem Aplicap, 3M ESPE). Then, each cylindrical resin stub (diameter 3.6 mm×2 mm) underwent a shear adhesive (bond) strength test and surface roughness evaluation. SEM evaluation and EDX analysis were used to observe surface properties of both zirconia and titanium samples. Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Turkey test (α=0.05).
Results: Surface roughness showed a significant difference amongst the different distances and angles for both the zirconia and titanium materials and these changes in surface roughness were evident in the SEM imaging photos. As for the adhesive strength, there was a significant difference in the adhesive strength for the titanium and zirconia with different angles. In general, 75° gives the best results although this is not significantly different from 90°. However, no significant difference was observed in changes of sandblasting distance for both materials. EDX analysis at the surface revealed elements carbon, oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and zirconia on the surface.
Conclusions: Sandblasting at various distance and angles contributes differences in surface roughness when it comes to both zirconia and titanium materials. Despite both 75° or 90° sandblasting angle could yield a sufficiently high adhesive strength for resin to titanium or zirconia bonding, sandblasting at 75° seems to be optimal to increase the adhesive strength.
Methods: Densely sintered zirconia and cp2 titanium specimens were prepared and randomly divided into groups, and then sandblasted with various distance (5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm) and angles (45°, 60°, 75° and 90°). After surface treatment, each specimen surface underwent a silane primer application (RelyX, 3M ESPE), followed by bonding of a resin cement (RelyX Unicem Aplicap, 3M ESPE). Then, each cylindrical resin stub (diameter 3.6 mm×2 mm) underwent a shear adhesive (bond) strength test and surface roughness evaluation. SEM evaluation and EDX analysis were used to observe surface properties of both zirconia and titanium samples. Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Turkey test (α=0.05).
Results: Surface roughness showed a significant difference amongst the different distances and angles for both the zirconia and titanium materials and these changes in surface roughness were evident in the SEM imaging photos. As for the adhesive strength, there was a significant difference in the adhesive strength for the titanium and zirconia with different angles. In general, 75° gives the best results although this is not significantly different from 90°. However, no significant difference was observed in changes of sandblasting distance for both materials. EDX analysis at the surface revealed elements carbon, oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and zirconia on the surface.
Conclusions: Sandblasting at various distance and angles contributes differences in surface roughness when it comes to both zirconia and titanium materials. Despite both 75° or 90° sandblasting angle could yield a sufficiently high adhesive strength for resin to titanium or zirconia bonding, sandblasting at 75° seems to be optimal to increase the adhesive strength.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 25-31 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives |
| Volume | 62 |
| Early online date | 18 Jun 2015 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2015 |
Keywords
- adhesive strength
- implants
- resin cement
- sandblasting
- shear
- titanium
- zirconia
