AIM The aim was to compare the repair bond strength and surface topography of lithium disilicate ceramics (LDC) and hybrid resin ceramics (HRC) using different surface conditioning treatments [low level laser therapy (LLLT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), hydrofluoric acid (HF) with silane and air abrasion (AA) and silane]. MATERIAL AND METHOD Sixty specimens each of LDC and HRC were used. Discs were prepared for each group (6 × 2 mm), conditioned using different regimes. Specimens in group 1 and 5 were laser irradiated using Er,Cr:YSGG (ECYL), group 2 and 6 were conditioned using methylene blue photosensitizer (PDT), group 3 and 7 surface was treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFA-S), group 4 and 8 conditioned with Al2O3 air abrasion and silane (AA-S). A Porcelain Repair Kit was used according to manufacturer recommendation in all samples. Peak universal bond adhesive was rubbed on ceramic surface and then bonded with composite resin. For shear bond strength testing the specimens were placed in a universal testing machine. A stereomicroscope at 40x magnification was used to analyse failure pattern. Five specimens in each group after surface treatment were evaluated for surface changes and topography using scanning electron microscopy. The mean repair bond strength was calculated using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test at a significance level of (p < 0.05). RESULT The highest repair bond strength was observed in group 3 (LDC) (20.57 ± 3.58 MPa) (HFA-S), whereas, the lowest score was displayed in Group 2 (LDC) using methylene blue photosensitizer (MBPS) (12.18 ± 1.08 MPa). Similarly, in HRC the highest repair SBS was presented in group 8 (AA-S) (20.52 ± 2.51 MPa) and the lowest SBS values were exhibited by PDT treated group 6 (13.22 ± 0.62 MPa). CONCLUSION A combination of mechanical and chemical surface treatments should be used in order to achieve adequate repair bond strength between resin composites and ceramic interface of LDC and HRC.

中文翻译：

---

与氢氟酸相比，采用 LLLT 和光动力疗法修复二硅酸锂和混合树脂陶瓷的强度和表面形貌

目的 目的是比较二硅酸锂陶瓷 (LDC) 和混合树脂陶瓷 (HRC) 使用不同的表面调理处理 [低强度激光疗法 (LLLT)、光动力疗法 (PDT)、氢氟酸 ( HF) 与硅烷和空气磨损 (AA) 和硅烷]。材料和方法 使用了 LDC 和 HRC 各 60 个样品。为每组（6×2 mm）准备了圆盘，使用不同的方案进行调节。第 1 组和第 5 组样品使用 Er,Cr:YSGG (ECYL) 进行激光照射，第 2 组和第 6 组使用亚甲蓝光敏剂 (PDT) 进行处理，第 3 组和第 7 组表面使用氢氟酸和硅烷 (HFA-S) 处理，第 4 组和第 8 组用 Al2O3 空气磨损和硅烷 (AA-S) 调节。根据制造商的建议，在所有样品中使用了瓷器修复套件。将Peak万能胶在陶瓷表面摩擦，然后用复合树脂粘合。对于剪切粘合强度测试，将试样放置在通用试验机中。使用放大 40 倍的立体显微镜来分析故障模式。使用扫描电子显微镜评估表面处理后每组中的五个样品的表面变化和形貌。使用 ANOVA 和 Tukey 的事后检验以显着性水平 (p < 0.05) 计算平均修复粘合强度。结果在第 3 组 (LDC) (20.57 ± 3.58 MPa) (HFA-S) 中观察到最高的修复粘合强度，而在使用亚甲蓝光敏剂 (MBPS) 的第 2 组 (LDC) 中显示最低分数 (12.18 ± 1.08兆帕）。同样，在 HRC 中，最高修复 SBS 出现在第 8 组 (AA-S) (20.52 ± 2. 51 MPa) 和 PDT 治疗组 6 (13.22 ± 0.62 MPa) 表现出最低的 SBS 值。结论 应采用机械和化学表面处理相结合的方法，以达到树脂复合材料与 LDC 和 HRC 的陶瓷界面之间足够的修复结合强度。