Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on bond strength between In-Ceram Zirconia ceramic and Panavia Fluoro Cement. Background Data: Although several surface treatments have been used on In-Ceram Zirconia, no study has been conducted to investigate the effect of the Nd:YAG laser. Materials and Methods: Nine In-Ceram Zirconia blocks (10 × 10 × 6 mm) received three different surface treatments (n = 3 per group): group 1—Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting + silane; group 2—Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting + Rocatec Plus + silane; and group 3—Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting + Nd:YAG laser + silane. Resin cement was applied and light-cured, followed by the application of composite resin. The blocks were sectioned to obtain square rods with a cross-sectional dimension of 1.0 mm ² (n = 12 per group). Microtensile bond strength ( μ TBS) was recorded using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min and expressed in megapascals (MPa). Results: All groups yielded statistically significantly different μ TBS mean values: group 1 (11.81 ± 3.12 MPa); group 2 (15.75 ± 4.45 MPa); group 3 (18.70 ± 5.14 MPa) (ANOVA and Tukey's test; α = 0.05). Conclusion: Nd:YAG laser irradiation is an effective surface treatment for bonding between In-Ceram Zirconia and Panavia Fluoro Cement.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on bond strength between In-Ceram Alumina (VITA) and Panavia Fluoro Cement (Kuraray), and to verify the association between bond strength values and the percentage of remaining cement on the ceramic surface. Background Data: Although several conventional surface treatments have been used on aluminous ceramic, no study investigated the effect of the Nd:YAG laser. Methods: Nine In-Ceram Alumina blocks (10 × 10 × 6 mm) received three surface treatments: group 1, Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting + silane; group 2, Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting + Rocatec Plus + silane; and group 3, Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting + Nd:YAG Laser + silane. Resin cement was applied and light cured, followed by the application of composite. Blocks were sectioned to obtain sticks with a cross-sectional area of 1.0 mm ² . Microtensile bond strength (µTBS) was recorded in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Scanning electron microscopy images of the fractured areas were used to calculate the amount of remaining cement on the ceramic substrate. Results: All treatments yielded statistically different µTBS values (MPa): group 1, 14.38 ^A ; group 2, 20.09 ^B ; and group 3, 23.21 ^C (ANOVAand Tukey's test,α = 0.05). Pearson's correlation coefficient for µTBS × percentage of remaining cement was r = 0.92 ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: The Nd:YAG laser was the most effective surface treatment, followed by Rocatec and Al ₂ O ₃ sandblasting. A strong positive association was found between bond strength values and percentage of remaining cement.

SUMMARY: Statement of the Problem: Full-coverage all-ceramic restorations are widely used. The impact of various classifications of luting agent on marginal discrepancies is not well understood. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cervical fit of all ceramic crowns (IPS e.maxPress, Cergogold, and In Ceram) on bovine teeth with two luting agents before and after cementation. Materials and Methods: Ninety bovine incisors were embedded in resin. The coronal portions of the teeth were prepared to receive full-coverage crowns. Thirty crowns of 7.0 ± 0.5 mm height, 8.0 mm cervical diameter, and 4.2 mm incisal diameter were fabricated for each ceramic system. The crowns were seated on the teeth, and the marginal discrepancy was measured using a measuring microscope. Then, 15 crowns of each ceramic system were luted on the teeth with resin cement (Variolink II) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Rely X luting), and the marginal discrepancy was measured. The results were submitted to analysis of variance, t test and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Results: The three ceramic systems showed cervical fits after cementation statistically inferior to cervical fits before cementation for the two cements. The IPS e.maxPress showed values for cervical fit statistically superior to Cergogold before cementation. No statistically significant difference was found between IPS e.maxPress and In Ceram and In Ceram and Cergogold. After cementation, no statistically significant difference was found for the three ceramics systems when luted with resin or resin-modified glass ionomer luting agents. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that both cements studied increase the marginal discrepancy between the crown and the preparation for the three ceramic systems evaluated.

This in vitro study evaluated the color stability, gloss, and surface roughness (Ra) of four indirect composites. Enamel and dentin shades of Radica, Sculpture Plus, Belleglass-NG, and Gradia Indirect were evaluated for color stability. Specimens were stored in a staining solution (coffee) and assessed every 3 days for a period of 21 days, after which color difference (∆E*) was calculated. Only enamel shades were used for measuring gloss and surface roughness at 0, 5000, 10,000, and 20,000 cycles of simulated toothbrushing. The results were statistically analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Statistically significant changes in ∆E* during the 21-day period were observed in all indirect composites for enamel and dentin shades, and ∆E* was greater than the clinically acceptable value of 3.3. Belleglass-NG showed the least change in ∆E*, while Sculpture Plus had large changes in ∆E*. In all groups, gloss was 75% lower than baseline values after 10,000 cycles of toothbrushing. After 20,000 cycles, surface roughness was highest in Radica and lowest in Belleglass-NG. Belleglass-NG had higher color stability and gloss retention, and lower surface roughness, as compared with the other composite systems. (J Oral Sci 55, 9-15, 2013)