Effects of Two Different Acid Etching and Surface Washing Methods on Bond Strength on Different CAD‐CAM Blocks under Aging Protocols

Abstract

Aim. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of hydrofluoric acid and one‐component ceramic primer and silane (Monobond Etch and Prime (MEP)) applications on lithium disilicate glass ceramics and zirconium‐infiltrated lithium silicate glass ceramics, as well as the effect of ultrasonic and phosphoric acid surface washing methods on bond strength. Materials and Method. A total of 240 ceramic samples were prepared using two different CAD‐CAM material blocks with a thickness of 2 mm made of lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic (IPS e.max CAD) and zirconium‐infiltrated lithium silicate glass ceramic blocks (Celtra Duo). The samples were cemented to the composite discs (Tetric N‐Ceram) after two different acid treatments, and surface washing processes were applied to them. As such, 24 groups were formed, each with two different acid applications, three different washing processes, two different CAD‐CAM blocks, and two different aging procedures (n = 10). Following the application of the acid, different washing processes are used. These were HF acid and washing only (HF + W), HF acid and ultrasonic washing (HF + US), HF acid and phosphoric acid (HF + PA), MEP with washing only (MEP + W), MEP and ultrasonic washing (MEP + US), and MEP and phosphoric acid (MEP + PA). The composite discs were cemented with dual cure adhesive cement (Multilink Automix) after the determined surface treatments were applied to the blocks. After surface applications, SEM analysis was conducted. Following exposure to two different thermal procedures, long‐term (TL) and short‐term (TS), bond strengths were measured using an Instron universal test device. SPSS version 23.0 software was used to perform the statistical analyses. Histogram graphs and the Kolmogorov‐Smirnov/Shapiro‐Wilk test were used to assess the variables’ conformity to the normal distribution. Results. The bond strength values of TS and TL in the Celtra Duo block were significantly higher than those in the e.max CAD block (p < 0.05). The TS‐TL bonding strength value difference in the e.max CAD block was significantly higher than the surface measurements in the Celtra Duo block. While the highest bond strength value HF + US for TS in e.max CAD was 20.07 ± .31, the values of HF + US in Celtra Duo were significantly higher in terms of TL values when compared to other groups. Conclusion. Celtra Duo material demonstrated higher bond strength values after a short and long thermal cycle than e.max CAD material. In general, groups bonded with HF were less affected by the thermal cycle than groups treated with MEP.