Influence of surface treatment of resin composite substrate on the load-bearing capacity under fatigue of lithium disilicate monolithic simplified restorations

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of surface treatments of resin composite substrate on the fatigue behavior of adhesively cemented lithium disilicate glass-ceramic simplified restorations. CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic blocks were shaped into discs (N = 60, Ø = 10 mm; thickness = 1.0 mm). Resin composite discs (N = 60, Ø = 10 mm, thickness = 2 mm) were allocated into four groups considering the “surface treatment” factor: Ctrl – no surface treatment; Bur – grinding with coarse diamond bur (#3101G, KG Sorensen); PA – etching with 37% phosphoric acid (15 s); AA – air abrasion with alumina particles (45 μm, 10 mm distance, 2.8 bars, 10 s). The surface topography, the roughness, the fractal dimension (estimated by the box-counting method) and the contact angle analyses were performed after the surface treatments. The lithium disilicate discs were etched (5% hydrofluoric acid, 20 s), silanized and adhesively cemented (Multilink N, Ivoclar Vivadent) on the resin composite discs. The samples (bonded restoration set) were subjected to a step-stress fatigue test at 20 Hz, 10,000 cycles/step with a step-size of 100 N applied on the ceramic surface, having ceramic up and resin composite down. Fractographic analysis was performed. The fatigue data (Fatigue Failure Load – FFL; and Cycles for Failure – CFF) were analyzed by Kaplan Meier with Mantel-Cox log-rank post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). No statistical difference for fatigue performance could be found among the groups (FFL means: 820–867 N; CFF means: 53,195–61,090 cycles). The bur group showed higher surface roughness and contact angle values. The PA group has the highest average fractal dimension. Therefore, the resin composite surface treatment induces topographical changes, however, it has no effect on the fatigue behavior of lithium disilicate restorations.