Resumo Introdução A silanização da superfície cerâmica antes da aplicação do adesivo e/ou materiais resinosos desempenha um papel importante na resistência adesiva. Atualmente, uma nova família de sistemas adesivos foi introduzida no mercado, visando simplificar a técnica dos procedimentos adesivos durante a cimentação. Objetivo Investigar a eficácia de diferentes soluções contendo silano e primer na superfície de cerâmicas de Dissilicato de Lítio (DLT) por meio de testes de resistência adesiva por cisalhamento. Material e método 130 blocos cerâmicos DLT foram incluídos em resina acrílica, polidos e lavados em ultra-som por 10 minutos. Os espécimes foram divididos em 2 grupos de acordo com tratamento de superfície: Superfície Polida (PS); Ácido Hidro-Fluorídrico 9,5% - 20s (HF). Cada grupo foi dividido em 5 sub-grupos (n = 13) de acordo com o tipo de primer/silano: primer metálico contendo MDP (ZprimePlus, Bisco Inc); dois silanos tradicionais (MonobondPlus, IvoclarVivadent / Porcelain Prime, Bisco Inc.); mistura de silano e resina (Kerr Silane, Kerr); mistura de silano e adesivo universal (Single-bond Universal, 3M Espe). Os espécimes foram montados em um dispositivo padrão (UltradentBonding Assembly) para teste de cisalhamento Bisco Shear Bond Tester), cimentados com cimento resinoso dual (RelyX UltimateTM, 3M Espe.) e foto-polimerizados por 20s. O teste foi realizado após o período de: 24 horas e 3 meses de armazenamento em água destilada à ±36 °C. Os dados foram analisados por 3-Way Anova e Teste de Tukey (α=5%). Resultado A resistência adesiva ao cisalhamento (SBS) foi significativamente influenciada pelo tipo de tratamento da superfície, pelo tipo de agente de união utilizado e pelo armazenamento (p<0,001). Conclusão Adequada resistência adesiva pode ser obtida com silanos tradicionais, combinados com o pré-tratamento de superfície com ácido HF.

Abstract Introduction The silanization of the ceramic surface prior to applying the adhesive and/or resinous materials plays an important role in bond strength. Nowadays, a new family of adhesive systems has been introduced into the market, aiming to simplify the technique of adhesive procedures during cementation. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of different bonding agents containing silane and primer on Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic (LD) surface by shear bond strength tests. Material and method 130 LD ceramic blocks were included in acrylic resin, polished and washed in ultrasound for 10 minutes. The specimens were divided into 2 groups according to surface treatment: Polished Surface (PS); Hydrofluoric Acid 9.5% - 20s (HF). Each group was divided into 5 subgroups (n = 13) according to bonding agent type: metallic primer containing MDP (ZPrimePlus, Bisco Inc); two traditional silanes (MonobondPlus, IvoclarVivadent / Porcelain Prime, Bisco Inc.); mixture of silane and resin (Kerr Silane, Kerr); mixture of silane and universal adhesive (Single-bond Universal, 3M Espe). The specimens were mounted in a standard device for shear testing (UltradentBonding Assembly), cemented with dual resin cement (RelyX UltimateTM, 3M Espe.) and photo-polymerized for 20s. The samples were tested after 24 hours and 3 months of storage in distilled water at ±36 °C. The data were analyzed by 3-Way Anova and Tukey's test (α = 5%). Result Shear bond strength (SBS) was significantly influenced by surface treatment, bonding agent used and storage (p <0.001). Conclusion Adequate adhesive bond strength to Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic can be obtained with traditional silanes, combined with HF acid pretreatment surface.

Composite resin and metallic posts are the materials most employed for reconstruction of teeth presenting partial or total destruction of crowns. Resin-based cements have been widely used for cementation of ceramic crowns. The success of cementation depends on the achievement of adequate cement curing. Objectives: To evaluate the microhardness of Variolink® II (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), used for cementing ceramic crowns onto three different coronal substrate preparations (dentin, metal, and composite resin), after 7 days and 3 months of water storage. The evaluation was performed along the cement line in the cervical, medium and occlusal thirds on the buccal and lingual aspects, and on the occlusal surface. Material and Methods: Thirty molars were distributed in three groups (N=10) according to the type of coronal substrate: Group D- the prepared surfaces were kept in dentin; Groups M (metal) and R (resin)- the crowns were sectioned at the level of the cementoenamel junction and restored with metallic cast posts or resin build-up cores, respectively. The crowns were fabricated in ceramic IPS e.max® Press (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and luted with Variolink II. After 7 days of water storage, 5 specimens of each group were sectioned in buccolingual direction for microhardness measurements. The other specimens (N=5) were kept stored in deionized water at 37ºC for three months, followed by sectioning and microhardness measurements. Results: Data were first analyzed by three-way ANOVA that did not reveal significant differences between thirds and occlusal surface (p=0.231). Two-way ANOVA showed significant effect of substrates (p<0.001) and the Tukey test revealed that microhardness was significantly lower when crowns were cemented on resin cores and tested after 7 days of water storage (p=0.007). Conclusion: The type of material employed for coronal reconstruction of preparations for prosthetic purposes may influence the cement properties.

OBJECTIVES: In some clinical situations, dentists come across partially edentulous patients, and it might be necessary to connect teeth to implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate a metal-ceramic fixed tooth/implant-supported denture with a straight segment, located in the posterior region of the maxilla, when varying the number of teeth used as abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A three-element fixed denture composed of one tooth and one implant (Model 1), and a four-element fixed denture composed of two teeth and one implant (Model 2) were modeled. A 100 N load was applied, distributed uniformly on the entire set, simulating functional mastication, for further analysis of the SEQV (Von Mises) principal stresses, which were compared with the flow limit of the materials. RESULTS: In a quantitative analysis, it may be observed that in the denture with one tooth, the maximum SEQV stress was 47.84 MPa, whereas for the denture with two teeth the maximum SEQV stress was 35.82 MPa, both located in the region between the pontic and the tooth. CONCLUSION: Lower stresses were observed in the denture with an additional tooth. Based on the flow limit of the materials, porcelain showed values below the limit of functional mastication.