الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 141 |  |  |
| | | from | 141 | | |
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate bond strength of two resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramic. Materials and methods: A total of 64 lithium disilicate discs (IPS e.max press) (8mm × 3mm) were fabricated using pressing technique. The discs were divided into two groups (n=32), according to luting cement: group (I) Multi-step adhesive resin cement (Multilink® N). group (II) Self-adhesive resin cement (Maxcem Elite®). Each group was further subdivided into 4 subgroups (n=8) according to surface treatment. (A): Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP), (B): Hydrofluoric acid (HF), (C): Acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) and (D): Ammonium hydrogen difluoride (AHDF). Composite resin discs (Nexcomp®) were fabricated and cemented to the treated discs. All bonded specimens were stored in water bath for 5 months and subjected to 5000 thermal cycles. Shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) was used for specimens examination. Results: The statistical analysis were done using 2-way ANOVA and serial 1-way ANOVAs followed by Post Hoc Tukey-HSD test at α =(0.05). Multi-step adhesive resin cement significantly increased SBS (P=0.001). The highest mean SBS (17.05±3.99 MPa) was obtained for APF followed by HF with adhesive resin cement (16.59±2.27 MPa). On the other hand, AHDF with self-adhesive resin cement showed the lowest mean SBS (6.71±1.46 MPa). Conclusions: Bonding of lithium disilicate ceramic with adhesive resin cement is preferred than self-adhesive resin cement. Both HF acid and APF are preferred to be used for surface treatment of lithium disilicate ceramics regardless of the type of cement used.Keywords: Lithium disilicate ceramics, luting cement, surface conditioning.