Background: The need to control moisture and contamination is crucial in adhesive dentistry, especially when rubber dam isolation is not feasible. Hemostatic contamination can negatively affect adhesion to tooth substrate. To achieve better outcomes, hemostatic agents should be rinsed off properly using a method that will remove the contamination and will not affect the μ-SBS. Objective: To evaluate and compare the effect of three different aluminum chloride and ferric sulfate contamination removal methods on the μ-SBS of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic bonded to enamel and to compare the type of fracture between samples. Material and Methods: Lithium disilicate blocks (IPS e.max CAD) were cut into samples of 2 mm in diameter and 3mm in height. Thirty-five human molar teeth were collected and separated into seven groups (n=17) Groups: G1(control): No contamination. G2: Contamination with aluminum chloride and removal by 30 seconds water-rinse. G3: Contamination with aluminum chloride, removal by re-etching (37.5% phosphoric acid), water-rinse. G4: Contamination with aluminum chloride, removal with 18% EDTA G5: Contamination with ferric sulfate, removal with water-rinse. G6: Contamination with ferric sulfate, removal by re-etching (37.5% phosphoric acid), water-rinse and dried. G7: Contamination with ferric sulfate, removal with 18% EDTA. The enamel surface was etched, then contaminated with aluminum chloride and ferric sulfate, cleaned using 3 different methods, previously described. Ceramic samples were etched with HF acid, silanated then bonded to enamel surface using Optibond FL, Variolink veneer cement and the Elipar S10 curing light, to avoid oxygen inhibition restoration margins were cover with a glycerin to complete polymerization of 10 -30 seconds each side. Specimens were stored in deionized water for 7 days, then subjected to μ-SBS testing, fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope to determine the type of fracture, and five sample of each group were selected for SEM. To compare differences for the outcome a general linear mode ANOVA was created, and data recorded. Results: There were statistically significant differences among the studied groups for the μ-SBS (p
| Date of Award | Jan 1 2018 |
|---|
| Original language | English |
|---|
| Supervisor | Sharon C. Siegel (Supervisor) |
|---|