União de materiais adesivos à cerâmica e ao polímero

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the bond strength of Single Bond Universal adhesive and Adper Scothbond Multi-Purpose adhesive, with and without application of silane, on the feldsphatic ceramic and composite resin. It was always evaluated the bond strength of zirconia primers and a universal adhesive to zirconia ceramic. Sixty feldspathic ceramic samples, 60 composite resin samples and 76 zirconia ceramic samples were embedded in acrylic resin, followed by polishing with 600 and 1200 grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. The ceramic surface was etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid, and the composite resin and zirconia surface were sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide. The feldspathic and composite resin samples were divided into four groups (n=15) for each material: G1 – Adper Scothbond Multi-Purpose adhesive (SBMP); G2 – Silane + SBMP; G3 – Single Bond Universal (SBU); G4 – silane + SBU. The zirconia samples were divided into five groups (n=15): G1 – Single Bond Universal (SBU); G2 – silane + SBU; G3 - Signum Zirconia Bond; G4 - Z-Prime Plus; G5 - MZ Primer. A cone of composite resin was built on the applied adhesives. The specimens were stored in relative humidity of 100% at 37oC for 48 h, and then submitted to tensile bond strength test in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The type of failures was analyzed. The results obtained with feldspathic ceramic and composite resin were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test (α=0,05). Values of bond strength (MPa) followed by different letters are statistically different: Ceramic: G2=21.23a, G4=8.87b, G3=3.24c, G1=2.73c. Composite resin: G2=24.59a, G3=20.91ab, G4=19.77bc, G1=17.00c. The adhesive failures were predominant for ceramic and composite resin, except groups 2 and 4 of the ceramic. The results obtained with zirconia ceramic were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Mean values of bond strength (MPa) followed by different letters are statistically different: Ceramic: G2=27.55a, G4=23.71a, G1=22.64a,G5=13.64b, G3=7.54c. The failures were predominantly cohesive in composite resin cone in groups 1, 2 and 4. The failures were predominantly mixed in group 5, and all failures were adhesive in group 3. The application of silane prior to the adhesives provided greater bond strength with feldspathic ceramic. For the composite resin, the prior application of silane was important for SBMP and not for SBU. SBU and Z-Prime Plus provided higher bond strength values to zirconia. The lowest values were obtained with Signum Zirconia Bond, followed by MZ Primer. The use of silane, prior to the SBU, did not significantly increase the bond strength to zirconia ceramic.