Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic.

Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Journal of Dental Research (Impact Factor: 3.83). 10/1995; 74(9):1591-6. DOI: 10.1177/00220345950740091401
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Since the mode of failure of resin composites bonded to ceramics has frequently been reported to be cohesive fracture of either ceramic or resin composite rather than separation at the adhesive interface, this study was designed to question the validity of shear bond strength tests. The reasons for such a failure mode are identified and an alternative tensile bond strength test evaluated. Three configurations (A, conventional; B, reversed; and C, all composite) of the cylinder-on-disc design were produced for shear bond strength testing. Two-dimensional finite element stress analysis (FEA) was carried out to determine qualitatively the stress distribution for the three configurations. A tensile bond strength test was designed and used to evaluate two ceramic repair systems, one using hydrofluoric acid (HF) and the other acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF). Results from the shear bond strength tests and FEA showed that this particular test has as its inherent feature the measurement of the strength of the base material rather than the strength of the adhesive interface. In the tensile test, failure invariably occurred in the adhesive layer, with HF and APF showing a similar ability to improve the bond of resin composite to ceramic. It is concluded that the tensile bond strength test is more appropriate for evaluating the adhesive capabilities of resin composites to ceramics.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statement of the ProblemResin bonding is essential for clinical longevity of indirect restorations. Especially in light of the increasing popularity of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-fabricated indirect restorations, there is a need to assess optimal bonding protocols for new ceramic/polymer materials and indirect composites.Purpose of the StudyThe aim of this article was to review and assess the current scientific evidence on the resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials.Materials and Methods An electronic PubMed database search was conducted from 1966 to September 2013 for in vitro studies pertaining the resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials.ResultsThe search revealed 198 titles. Full-text screening was carried out for 43 studies, yielding 18 relevant articles that complied with inclusion criteria. No relevant studies could be identified regarding new ceramic/polymer materials. Most common surface treatments are aluminum-oxide air-abrasion, silane treatment, and hydrofluoric acid-etching for indirect composite restoration. Self-adhesive cements achieve lower bond strengths in comparison with etch-and-rinse systems. Thermocycling has a greater impact on bonding behavior than water storage.Conclusions Air-particle abrasion and additional silane treatment should be applied to enhance the resin bond to laboratory-processed composites. However, there is an urgent need for in vitro studies that evaluate the bond strength to new ceramic/polymer materials.Clinical SignificanceThis article reviews the available dental literature on resin bond of laboratory composites and gives scientifically based guidance for their successful placement. Furthermore, this review demonstrated that future research for new ceramic/polymer materials is required.
    Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 05/2014; · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the microtensile bond strength between two all-ceramic systems; lithium disilicate glass ceramic and zirconia core ceramics bonded with their corresponding glass veneers.
    The journal of advanced prosthodontics 06/2014; 6(3):151-6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to explain the influence of peripheral interface stress singularities on the testing of tensile bond strength. The relationships between these theoretically predicted singularities and the effect of specimen size on the measured bond strength are evaluated. Finite element method (FEM) and boundary element method (BEM) analyses of microtensile bond strength test specimens were performed and the presence of localized high stress concentrations and singularities was analyzed. The specimen size effect predicted by the models was compared to previously published experimental data. FEM analysis of single-material trimmed hour-glass versus cast cylindrical specimens showed different theoretical stress distributions, with the dumbbell or cylindrical specimens showing a more homogeneous distribution of the stress on the critical symmetry plane. For multi-material specimens, mathematical singularities at the free edge of the bonded interface posed a computational challenge that resulted in mesh-dependence in the standard FEM analysis. A specialized weighted-traction BEM analysis, designed to eliminate mesh-dependence by capturing the effect of the singularity, predicted a specimen size effect that corresponds to that published previously in the literature. The results presented here further support the attention to specimen dimensions that has already broadened the empirical use of the microtensile test methods. FEM and BEM analyses that identify stress concentrations and especially marginal stress singularities must be accounted for in reliable bonding strength assessments. Size-dependent strength variations generally attributed to the effects of flaw distributions throughout the interfacial region are not as relevant as the presence of singularities at bonded joint boundaries - as revealed by both FEM and BEM analyses, when interpreted from a generalized fracture mechanics perspective. Furthermore, this size-dependence must be considered when evaluating or designing dental adhesive systems.
    Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 04/2014; · 2.88 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014