METHODS: Sixty-five extracted maxillary incisors were decoronated, its canal was artificially flared and randomly categorized into group tFRC (tapered FRC post) (n = 22), mFRC (multi-FRC post) (n = 21), and DIS-FRC (direct individually shaped-FRC (DIS-FRC) post) (n = 22), which were further subdivided based on cementation resin. The posts were cemented and a standardized resin core was constructed. After thermocycling, the samples were loaded statically and the maximum load was recorded.
RESULTS: The load capacity of the maxillary central incisor was influenced by the different FRC post system and not the resin cement (p = 0.289), and no significant interaction was found between them. Group mFRC (522.9N) yielded a significantly higher load capacity compared to DIS-FRC (421.1N). Overall, a 55% favorable fracture pattern was observed, and this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the study, it can be concluded that prefabricated FRC posts outperform DIS-FRC posts in terms of the load capacity of a maxillary central incisor with a simulated flared root canal. The cementation methods whether a self-adhesive or self-etch resin cement, was not demonstrated to influence the load capacity of a maxillary central incisor with a flared root canal. There were no significant differences between the favorable and non-favorable fracture when FRC post systems were used to restored a maxillary central incisor with a flared root canal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty Turkom-Cera ceramic disks (10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. The disks were wet ground to 1000-grit and subjected to four surface treatments: (1) No treatment (Control), (2) sandblasting, (3) silane application, and (4) sandblasting + silane. The four groups of 10 specimens each were bonded with Panavia-F resin cement according to manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS was determined using the universal testing machine (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure modes were recorded and a qualitative micromorphologic examination of different surface treatments was performed. The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests.
RESULTS: The SBS of the control, sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups were: 10.8 ± 1.5, 16.4 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 2.5, and 19.1 ± 2.4 MPa respectively. According to the Tukey HSD test, only the mean SBS of the control group was significantly different from the other three groups. There was no significant difference between sandblasting, silane, and sandblasting + silane groups.
CONCLUSION: In this study, the three surface treatments used improved the bond strength of resin cement to Turkom-Cera disks.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The surface treatments used in this study appeared to be suitable methods for the cementation of glass infiltrated all-ceramic restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different makes of ceramic brackets, Pure Sapphire(M), Clarity™ ADVANCED(P) and Dual Ceramic(P) were used. Eighteen specimens of each make were prepared and allocated to three groups (n = 6). MARC(®)-resin calibrator was used to determine the light curing unit (LCU) tip irradiance (mW/cm(2)) and TLE (J/cm(2)) transmitted through the ceramic brackets, and through ceramic bracket plus Transbond™ XT Light Cure Adhesive, for 5, 10 and 20 s. Vickers-hardness values at the bottom of the cured adhesive were determined. Statistical analysis used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); P = 0.05.
RESULTS: TLE transmission rose significantly among all samples with increasing exposure durations. TLE reaching the adhesive- enamel interface was less than 10 J/cm(2), and through monocrystalline and polycrystalline ceramic brackets was significantly different (P
AIM: To evaluate the shear bond strength of Zinc phosphate cement Elite, glass ionomer cement Fuji I, resin-modified glass ionomer cement Fuji Plus and resin luting cement Panavia-F to Turkom-Cera all-ceramic material.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Turkom-Cera was used to form discs 10mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness (n = 40). The ceramic discs were wet ground, air - particle abraded with 50 - μm aluminium oxide particles and randomly divided into four groups (n = 10). The luting cement was bonded to Turkom-Cera discs as per manufacturer instructions. The shear bond strengths were determined using the universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analysed using the tests One Way ANOVA, the nonparametric Kruskal - Wallis test and Mann - Whitney Post hoc test.
RESULTS: The shear bond strength of the Elite, Fuji I, Fuji Plus and Panavia F groups were: 0.92 ± 0.42, 2.04 ± 0.78, 4.37 ± 1.18, and 16.42 ± 3.38 MPa, respectively. There was the statistically significant difference between the four luting cement tested (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: the phosphate-containing resin cement Panavia-F exhibited shear bond strength value significantly higher than all materials tested.
METHODS: Six master dies were duplicated from the prepared maxillary first premolar tooth using nonprecious metal alloy (Wiron 99). Thirty copings (Procera AllCeram) of 0.6-mm thickness were manufactured. Three types of luting media were used: zinc phosphate cement (Elite), glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), and dual-cured composite resin cement (Panavia F). Ten copings were cemented with each type. Two master dies were used for each group, and each of them was used to lute five copings. All groups were cemented according to manufacturer's instructions and received a static load of 5 kg during cementation. After 24 hours of distilled water storage at 37 degrees C, the copings were vertically compressed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
RESULTS: ANOVA revealed significant differences in the load at fracture among the three groups (p < 0.001). The fracture strength results showed that the mean fracture strength of zinc phosphate cement (Elite), glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), and resin luting cement (Panavia F) were 1091.9 N, 784.8 N, and 1953.5 N, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Different luting agents have an influence on the fracture resistance of Procera AllCeram copings.