Abstract The objective is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and storage on the shear strength of ultratranslucent zirconia. 36 blocks of ultra-translucent zirconia were fabricated (7x7x2mm) and sintered. Then, divided into 12 groups according to the “surface treatment” (C -Primer; Al -Sandblasting with Al2O3 + Primer; Si -Silicate + Primer; Gl -Glaze + HF + Primer; Z -Zirlink; Zp -Zirlink + Primer) and “storage” factors (ST-with 150 days/37º and without). After surface treatment, five cylinders (Ø=2mm; h=2.0mm) of resin cement (n=15) were constructed in each ceramic block; at the end, the shear strength test was performed (1mm/min, 50Kgf), and analysis of surface failures. 60 additional samples (2x2x2mm) were made for extras analysis (surface roughness, MEV, and EDS). Bond strength and surface roughness data were statistically evaluated by ANOVA (2 factors/1 factor), Tukey test (5%), and Weibull analysis, respectively. ANOVA (2-way) revealed that all factors were statistically significant for bond strength. The silicatization groups (SiST: 30.47AMPa; Si: 29.21AMPa) showed the highest bond strength values, regardless of storage (Tukey's test). While the groups treated with Zirlink (ZST: 2.76FMPa; Z: 5.27EFMPa) showed the lowest values, just similar to the GlST group (5.14EFMPa). The Weibull modulus (m) showed a statistical difference between groups (p=0.000). ANOVA (1 factor) revealed that the "surface treatment" factor (p=0.0000) was statistically significant for surface roughness. Therefore, the application of Zirlink and Glaze on pre-sintered zirconia did not promote efficient adhesion of the ultratranslucent zirconia to the resin cement, even when associated with a primer containing MDP. 3 ultra translucent 7x7x2mm xxmm x mm (7x7x2mm sintered Then 1 treatment C Primer -Primer Sandblasting AlO O Al2O Silicate “storage STwith ST 15 days37º daysº days 37º º without. without . without) Ø=2mm Ø2mm Ømm Ø 2mm (Ø=2mm h=2.0mm h20mm hmm h 2 0mm n=15 n15 n (n=15 block end 1mm/min, 1mmmin mmmin 1mm min (1mm/min 50Kgf, 50Kgf Kgf , 50Kgf) failures 6 2x2x2mm (2x2x2mm MEV EDS. EDS EDS) ( factors1 factors/ factor, 5%, 5 5% (5%) respectively 2way way (2-way SiST (SiST 30.47AMPa 3047AMPa AMPa 30 47AMPa 29.21AMPa 2921AMPa 29 21AMPa values Tukeys s test. test) ZST (ZST 2.76FMPa 276FMPa FMPa 76FMPa 5.27EFMPa 527EFMPa EFMPa 27EFMPa 5.14EFMPa. 514EFMPa 5.14EFMPa 14EFMPa (5.14EFMPa) m (m p=0.000. p0000 p p=0.000 0 000 (p=0.000) p=0.0000 p00000 0000 (p=0.0000 Therefore presintered pre MDP n=1 n1 (n=1 1mm/min (5% (5.14EFMPa p000 p=0.00 00 (p=0.000 n= (n= (5 p00 p=0.0 (p=0.00 (n p0 p=0. (p=0.0 p=0 (p=0. p= (p=0 (p= (p

Resumo O objetivo é avaliar o efeito de diferentes tratamentos superficiais e do envelhecimento na resistência ao cisalhamento da zircônia ultratranslúcida. Foram confeccionados 36 blocos de zircônia ultratranslúcida (7x7x2mm) e sinterizados. Em seguida, divididos em 12 grupos de acordo com o “tratamento de superfície” (C-Primer; Al-Jateamento com Al2O3+Primer; Si-Silicato+Primer; Gl -Glaze+HF+Primer; Z-Zirlink; Zp-Zirlink+Primer) e fatores de “armazenamento” (ST-com, 150 dias/37º e sem). Após o tratamento superficial, foram construídos cinco cilindros (Ø=2mm; h=2,0mm) de cimento resinoso (n=15) em cada bloco cerâmico; ao final foi realizado o ensaio de resistência ao cisalhamento (1mm/min, 50Kgf) e análise de falhas superficiais. Foram confeccionadas 60 amostras adicionais (2x2x2mm) para análises extras (rugosidade superficial, MEV e EDS). Os dados de resistência de união e rugosidade superficial foram avaliados estatisticamente por ANOVA (2 fatores/1fator), teste de Tukey (5%) e análise de Weibull, respectivamente. ANOVA (2 fatores) revelou que todos os fatores foram estatisticamente significativos para a resistência de união. Os grupos de silicatização (SiST: 30,47AMPa; Si: 29,21AMPa) apresentaram os maiores valores de resistência de união, independente do armazenamento (Tukey). Enquanto os grupos tratados com Zirlink (ZST: 2,76FMPa; Z: 5,27EFMPa) apresentaram os valores mais baixos, apenas semelhantes ao grupo GlST (5,14EFMPa). O módulo de Weibull (m) apresentou diferença estatística entre os grupos (p=0,000). A ANOVA (1 fator) revelou que o fator “tratamento superficial” (p=0,0000) foi estatisticamente significativo para rugosidade superficial. Portanto, a aplicação de Zirlink e do Glaze na zircônia pré-sinterizada não promoveu adesão eficiente da zircônia ultratranslúcida ao cimento resinoso, mesmo quando associada a primer contendo MDP. 3 7x7x2mm xxmm x mm (7x7x2mm sinterizados seguida 1 superfície CPrimer C Primer (C-Primer AlJateamento Al Jateamento Al2O3+Primer Al2O3Primer AlOPrimer Al2O3 SiSilicato+Primer SiSilicatoPrimer Si Silicato+Primer Silicato Si-Silicato+Primer Glaze+HF+Primer GlazeHFPrimer HF -Glaze+HF+Primer ZZirlink Z Z-Zirlink ZpZirlink+Primer ZpZirlinkPrimer Zp Zirlink+Primer Zp-Zirlink+Primer “armazenamento STcom, STcom ST com, (ST-com 15 dias37º diasº dias 37º º sem. sem . sem) Ø=2mm Ø2mm Ømm Ø 2mm (Ø=2mm h=2,0mm h20mm hmm h 2 0mm n=15 n15 n (n=15 cerâmico 1mm/min, 1mmmin mmmin 1mm min (1mm/min 50Kgf Kgf 6 2x2x2mm (2x2x2mm EDS. EDS EDS) ( fatores/1fator, fatores1fator fatoresfator fatores/1fator , 1fator fatores/1fator) 5% 5 (5% respectivamente SiST (SiST 30,47AMPa 3047AMPa AMPa 30 47AMPa 29,21AMPa 2921AMPa 29 21AMPa Tukey. (Tukey) ZST (ZST 2,76FMPa 276FMPa FMPa 76FMPa 5,27EFMPa 527EFMPa EFMPa 27EFMPa baixos 5,14EFMPa. 514EFMPa 5,14EFMPa 14EFMPa (5,14EFMPa) m (m p=0,000. p0000 p p=0,000 0 000 (p=0,000) p=0,0000 p00000 0000 (p=0,0000 Portanto présinterizada pré sinterizada MDP AlO Al2O SiSilicato SilicatoPrimer ZpZirlink ZirlinkPrimer n=1 n1 (n=1 1mm/min (5 (Tukey (5,14EFMPa p000 p=0,00 00 (p=0,000 n= (n= p00 p=0,0 (p=0,00 (n p0 p=0, (p=0,0 p=0 (p=0, p= (p=0 (p= (p

Abstract This paper aims to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on surface topography, wettability, and shear bond strength of resin cement to glass ceramic. Methodology: For SBS test, 32 blocks (7x7x2 mm) of lithium disilicate were obtained and randomly divided into eight groups (four blocks per group) according to each surface treatment (HF 20 s, 60 s, 120 s + silanization/S or Scotch Bond Universal/ SBU) and the Monobond Etch & Prime - MEP application followed or not by SBU. On each treated surface ceramic block, up to four dual-curing resin cement cylinders were prepared and light-cured for 40s (N=120/n=15). The specimens were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5-55°C, 30 s) and the SBS test (50KgF, 0.5 mm/min) was performed. Furthermore, failure analysis, wettability, AFM, and SEM were carried out. SBS data (MPa) were analyzed using Student's t-test, two-way ANOVA, Tukey's test (5%) and Weibull's analysis. Results: For HF experimental groups, two-way ANOVA presented the factors “etching time” and “bonding agent” as significant (p<0.05). After silane application, the HF groups presented similar bond strength. SBU application compromised the SBS, except for 120s etching time (HF120sS: 23.39ᵃ±6.48 MPa; HF120sSBU: 18.76ᵃ±8.81MPa). For MEP groups, SBU application did not significantly affect the results (p=0.41). The MEP group presented the highest Weibull modulus (4.08A) and they were statistically different exclusively from the HF20sSBU (0.58B). Conclusion: The HF 20s, 60s, 120 s followed by silane, promoted similar resin-bond strength to ceramic and the SBU application after HF or MEP did not increase the SBS.