Bond strength of surface-treated novel high translucent zirconia to enamel

Figures & data

Table 1. Difference in shear bond strength. Lithium disilicate e.Max (Control), Zirkonzahn Prettau Anterior (ZPA), Whitepeaks CopraSmile (WCS).

Material	Mean difference (MPa)	95% confidence interval		Sig.
ZPA
Control	3.36	−3.68	10.41	0.729
WCS	5.40	−1.74	12.53	0.201
WCS
Control	−2.03	−8.86	4.80	1.000
ZPA	−5.40	−12.53	1.74	0.201

Figure 1. Distribution of shear bond strength according to test groups and fracture type, Lithium disilicate IPS e.Max Press (Control), Zirkonzahn Prettau Anterior (ZPA), Whitepeaks CopraSmile (WCS). Midline in box denotes median value, bottom of box the 25th percentile, top of the box 75th percentile. The T-bars show minimum or maximum values up to 1.5 of the box heights. The circles denote extreme values.

Table 2. Difference in shear bond strength when fractured at test body. Lithium disilicate e.Max (Control), Zirkonzahn Prettau Anterior (ZPA), Whitepeaks CopraSmile (WCS).

Material	Mean difference (MPa)	95% confidence interval		Sig.
ZPA
Control	4.66	−2.58	11.90	0.270
WCS	10.68	2.90	18.60	0.005
WCS
Control	−6.02	−12.87	0.83	0.095
ZPA	−10.68	−18.46	−2.90	0.005

Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope images illustrating the topography of the surface. A = Control (IPS e.Max Press). B = Whitepeaks CopraSmile. C = Zirkonzahn Prettau Anterior. Debris on the surface is remnants of the cement. Arrows indicate examples of debris.

Table 3. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis of the coated surface of Whitepeaks CopraSmile after fracture testing.

Element	Wt%	Atomic %
C	11.48	17.97
O	50.28	59.11
Na	0.79	0.65
Al	0.58	0.4
Si	30.4	20.36
Cl	0.89	0.47
Nb	2.51	0.51
Ag	3.08	0.54