الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 129 |  |  |
| | | from | 129 | | |
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment including hydrofluoric acid etching and sandblasting on the translucency and flexural strength of thin ceramic veneer.
Sixty ceramic discs were constructed with standardized dimensions for this study. Samples were divided in to two groups according to the ceramic material it’s made of:
• group A : IPS E.max CAD samples (n=30)
• group B:IPS Empress CAD (n=30)
Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups according to surface treatment received:
* Subgroup C: samples were not subjected to any surface treatment used as a control group (n=10)
* Subgroup HF: samples were treated by hydrofluoric acid.
* Subgroup SB: samples were sandblasted byAL2O3.
All samples were then tested for translucency by a spectrophotometer and flexural strength by the universal testing machine to detect the changes that’s caused by the surface treatment.
Data analysis was performed in several steps. Initially, descriptive statistics for each group results. Two-way analysis of variance ANOVA test of significance was done for comparing variables (material group and surface treatment) affecting mean values. One way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Tukey’s post-hoc tests were performed to detect significance between subgroups. Pair-wise student t-test was performed to detect interaction between variables of significant effect. Statistical analysis was performed using Aasistat 7.6 statistics software for Windows (Campina Grande, Paraiba state, Brazil). P values ≤ 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant in all tests.
Conclusion:
Within the limitation of this in-vitro study it’s concluded that:
1- Both translucency and flexural strength values of ceramic systems are affected by the type of material and surface treatment performed.
2- Control group within both ceramic types studied showed the highest flexural strength amongst other surface treatments.
3- IPS e.max CAD is much stronger material than IPS Empress CAD since it recorded the highest flexural strength.
4- After surface treatment, HF affected the BFS in both types of ceramics more than SB
5- The control group within both ceramic types recorded the highest TP values amongst other surface treatment.
6- For the IPS e.max CAD, SB affected the TP values more than HF surface treatment.
7- For the IPS Empress CAD, HF affected TP values more than SB surface treatment.