PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) between microwave and conventionally sintered zirconia core/veneers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 96 disc shaped Noritake Alliance zirconia specimens were fabricated using YenaDent CAM unit and were divided in 2 groups with respect to microwave or conventional methods (n=48/group). Surface roughness (Ra) evaluation was made with a profilometer on randomly selected microwave (n=10) and conventionally sintered (n=10) cores. Specimens were then assessed into 4 subgroups according to surface treatments applied (n=12/group). Groups for microwave (M) and conventionally (C) sintered core specimens were as follows; M(C),C(C): untreated (control group), M1,C1:Al2O3 sandblasting, M2,C2:liner, M3,C3:Al2O3 sandblasting followed by liner. Veneer ceramic was fired on zirconia cores and specimens were thermocycled (6000 cycles between 5degrees-55degrees C). All specimens were subjected to SBS test using a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min, failure were evaluated under an optical microscope. Data were statistically analyzed using Shapiro Wilk, Levene, Post-hoc Tukey HSD and Student's t tests, Two-Way-Variance-Analysis and One-Way-Variance-Analysis (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Conventionally sintered specimens (1.06 +/- 0.32 microm) showed rougher surfaces compared to microwave sintered ones (0.76 +/- 0.32 microm)(P=.046), however, no correlation was found between SBS and surface roughness (r=-0.109, P=.658). The statistical comparison of the shear bond strengths of C3 and C1 group (P=.015); C(C) and M(C) group (P=.004) and C3 and M3 group presented statistically higher (P=.005) values. While adhesive failure was not seen in any of the groups, cohesive and combined patterns were seen in all groups. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this in-vitro study, Al2O3-sandblasting followed by liner application on conventionally sintered zirconia cores may be preferred to enhance bond strength.
Adhesives ; Ceramics* ; Collodion ; Fires ; Methods ; Microwaves* ; Zirconium

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different denture cleansers on the surface roughness and microhardness of various types of posterior denture teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 168 artificial tooth specimens were divided into the following four subgroups (n=42): SR Orthotyp PE (polymethylmethacrylate); SR Orthosit PE (Isosit); SR Postaris DCL (double cross-linked); and SR Phonares II (nanohybrid composite). The specimens were further divided according to the type of the denture cleanser (Corega Tabs (sodium perborate), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and distilled water (control) (n=14)) and immersed in the cleanser to simulate a 180-day immersion period, after which the surface roughness and microhardness were tested. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, Conover's nonparametric multiple comparison test, and Spearman's rank correlation analysis (P<.05). RESULTS: A comparison among the denture cleanser groups showed that NaOCl caused significantly higher roughness values on SR Orthotyp PE specimens when compared with the other artificial teeth (P<.001). Furthermore, Corega Tabs resulted in higher microhardness values in SR Orthotyp PE specimens than distilled water and NaOCl (P<.005). The microhardness values decreased significantly from distilled water, NaOCl, to Corega Tabs for SR Orthosit PE specimens (P<.001). SR Postaris DLC specimens showed increased microhardness when immersed in distilled water or NaOCl when compared with immersion in Corega Tabs (P<.003). No correlation was found between surface roughness and microhardness (r=0.104, P=.178). CONCLUSION: NaOCl and Corega Tabs affected the surface roughness and microhardness of all artificial denture teeth except for the new generation nanohybrid composite teeth.
Denture Cleansers* ; Denture, Complete ; Dentures* ; Immersion ; Sodium Hypochlorite ; Tooth* ; Tooth, Artificial ; Water

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate if pre-treatment with desensitizers have a negative effect on microtensile bond strength before cementing a restoration using recently introduced self-adhesive resin cement to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five human molars' occlusal surfaces were ground to expose dentin; and were randomly grouped as (n=5); 1) Gluma-(Glutaraldehyde/HEMA) 2) Aqua-Prep F-(Fluoride), 3) Bisblock-(Oxalate), 4) Cervitec Plus-(Clorhexidine), 5) Smart protect-(Triclosan), 6) Nd:YAG laser, 7) No treatment (control). After applying the selected agent, RelyX U200 self-adhesive resin cement was used to bond composite resin blocks to dentin. All groups were subjected to thermocycling for 1000 cycles between 5-55degrees C. Each bonded specimen was sectioned to microbars (6 mm x 1 mm x 1 mm) (n=20). Specimens were submitted to microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Levene's test, Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance, and Conover's nonparametric statistical analysis were used (P<.05). RESULTS: Gluma, Smart Protect and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed comparable microtensile bond strengths compared with the control group (P>.05). The microtensile bond strengths of Aqua-Prep F, and Cervitec Plus were similar to each other but significantly lower than the control group (P<.05). Bisblock showed the lowest microtensile bond strength among all groups (P<.001). Most groups showed adhesive failure. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this study, it is not recommended to use Aqua-prep F, Cervitec Plus and Bisblock on dentin when used with a self-adhesive resin cement due to the decrease they cause in bond strength. Beside, pre-treatment of dentin with Gluma, Smart protect, and Nd:YAG laser do not have a negative effect.
Adhesives ; Dentin* ; Humans ; Resin Cements*