Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effect of different self‐etching primer (Monobond Etch n = 10 for µSBS and n = 4 for scanning electron microscopy SEM). For µSBS, resin cement was applied and light‐cured; half of the resin cylinders were stored for 24 h, while the other half underwent thermocycling (TC) (10,000 cycles; dwell time of 30 s between 5°C and 55°C) before testing. Data were analyzed using three‐way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post hoc tests ( α = 0.05). Results The HF + S group showed higher µSBS for EM than VS and CD ( p < 0.001). MEP100 achieved comparable µSBS with HF + S for CD ( p < 0.001) and improved µSBS for VS and EM ( p = 0.128). TC decreased the µSBS values in most groups. The only exception was observed when the VS and CD surfaces were treated with MEP100, and when the CD surface was treated with MEP80. Adhesive fractures were predominantly seen. SEM revealed MEP100 produced etching patterns like HF, with lithium metasilicate and orthophosphate crystals present. Conclusions Prolonged MEP application (MEP100) produced etching patterns and µSBS values comparable to HF + S, making it a viable surface treatment alternative for ZLS and LD ceramics.
Pulido et al. (Sun,) studied this question.