PURPOSE: To explore the influence of different surface conditionings on surface changes and the influence of surface treatments and aging on the bond strengths of composites to non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rectangular-shaped non-aged and aged (5000 thermocycles) resin nanoceramic specimens (Lava Ultimate) (n=63, each) were divided into 3 groups according to surface treatments (untreated, air abrasion, or silica coating) (n=21). The surface roughness was measured and scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each group. Afterwards, the specimens were repaired with a composite resin (Filtek Z550) and half were sent for aging (5000 thermocycles, n=10, each). Shear bond strengths and failure types were evaluated. Roughness and bond strength were investigated by two- and three-way analysis of variance, respectively. The correlation between the roughness and bond strength was investigated by Pearson's correlation test. RESULTS: Surface-treated samples had higher roughness compared with the untreated specimens (P=.000). For the non-aged resin nanoceramic groups, aging was a significant factor for bond strength; for the aged resin nanoceramic groups, surface treatment and aging were significant factors. The failures were mostly adhesive after thermal cycling, except in the non-aged untreated group and the aged air-abraded group, which had mostly mixed failures. Roughness and bond strength were positively correlated (P=.003). CONCLUSION: Surface treatment is not required for the repair of non-aged resin nanoceramic; for the repair of aged resin nanoceramic restorations, air abrasion is recommended.
Adhesives ; Aging ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; Silicon Dioxide

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of sintering programs and surface treatments on surface properties, phase transformation and flexural strength of monolithic zirconia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Zirconia specimens were sintered using three distinct sintering programs [classic (C), speed (S), and superspeed (SS)] (n = 56, each). One sample from each group underwent scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and grain size analysis following sintering. Remaining samples were divided into five subgroups (n = 11) based on the surface treatments: control (CL), polish (P), glaze (G), grind + polish (GP), and grind + glaze (GG). One sample from each subgroup underwent SEM analysis. Remaining samples were thermally aged. Monoclinic phase volume, surface roughness, and three-point flexural strength were measured. Monoclinic phase volume and surface roughness were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests. Flexural strength was analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Weibull analysis. The relationships among the groups were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation analysis. RESULTS: Sintering program, surface treatment, and sintering × surface treatment (P ≤ .010) affected the monoclinic phase volume, whereas the type of surface treatment and sintering × surface treatment affected the surface roughness (P < .001). Type of sintering program or surface treatment did not affect the flexural strength. Weibull analysis revealed no significant differences between the m and σo values. Monoclinic phase volume was positively correlated with surface roughness in the SGG and SSP groups. CONCLUSION After sintering monolithic zirconia in each of the three sintering programs, each of the surface treatments can be used. However, for surface quality and aging resistance, G or GG can be recommended as a surface finishing method.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of surface treatments, liquids, and aging on color, translucency, and surface properties of monolithic ceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS Lithium disilicate (LDS) and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramics (n = 135 each) were cut and divided into three groups [crystallization+glaze (single stage), crystallizationglaze (two stages), and crystallization-polish (two stages)]. One sample from each group was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Remaining samples were divided into four subgroups (distilled water, coffee, grape juice, and smoothie) (n = 11 each), stored for 12 d in the respective liquids, and thermally aged. One sample from each subgroup was analyzed using SEM. The color, gloss, and roughness values of the samples were analyzed after surface treatment (initial) and storage under different liquids+aging conditions. The initial data and both the aged data and data change values were analyzed using robust two- and three-way analyses of variance. RESULTS: The glazed groups exhibited smoother surfaces. Ceramic type and ceramic-surface treatment interactions affected the initial translucency parameter (TP) (P < .001) and the initial and aged roughness values (P ≤ .001). Surface treatment type affected the color change (P < .001), and ceramic type affected the aged TP values (P < .001). Type of ceramic, surface treatment, and their interactions affected both the initial and aged gloss (P ≤ .001) and TP change values (P ≤ .015). Surface treatment type and ceramicsurface treatment interactions affected the gloss change values (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION Although both ceramics and all surface treatments are clinically applicable, crystallization-glaze is recommended. When gloss and smoothness are important or when translucency is important, ZLS or LDS may be preferred, respectively.