The effect of repair protocols and chewing simulation on the microtensile bond strength of two resin matrix ceramics to composite resin

Table 2 Mean values and standard deviation of micro tensile bond strength (µTBS) test (MPa)

Aging	Surface treatments	Vita Enamic (VE)	Lava Ultimate (LU)
Without chewing simulation	B	30.83 ± 4.04 ^Bb*	44.84 ± 4.99 ^Abc*
	B + S	44.26 ± 5.55 ^Ba*	55.98 ± 5.72 ^Aa*
	HF	26.80 ± 2.81 ^Bc*	40.07 ± 5.37 ^Ac*
	HF + S	42.28 ± 3.40 ^Ba*	47.48 ± 4.55 ^Ab*
With chewing simulation	B	21.25 ± 2.36 ^Bb	35.37 ± 4.53 ^Aab
	B + S	29.88 ± 3.89 ^Ba	39.43 ± 5.60 ^Aa
	HF	20.89 ± 2.83 ^Bb	32.14 ± 4.91 ^Ab
	HF + S	29.27 ± 2.72 ^Ba	34.27 ± 5.34 ^Ab

Different uppercase letters within the same row indicate significant differences between the RMC blocks. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate significant differences between different surface treatments within each aging group. The presence of * within the same column indicates significant differences between the with and without chewing simulation groups

ISSN: 1472-6831