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: 4.14). 10/1995; 74(9):1591-6. DOI: 10.1177/00220345950740091401
Source: PubMed


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.

2,281 Reads
    • "Such methods have been used to evaluate the effect of surface treatment or thermocycling of ceramic restorative materials [25] [26]; thermocycling has been used extensively to simulate aging of resin cement in an intra-oral environment [9] [27]. While relatively simple, such testing concepts are generally marred by large variations in the bond failure stress, the effect that may be attributed to the joint's sensitivity to geometric misalignments and the tendency for tensile stresses to concentrate at the bond terminus [28] [29]. An alternative means for assessing bond strength is the use of fracture mechanics. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. A major limiting factor for the widespread use of zirconia in prosthetic dentistry is its poor resin-cement bonding capabilities. We show that this deficiency can be overcome by infiltrating the zirconia cementation surface with glass. Current methods for assessing the fracture resistance of resin-ceramic bonds are marred by uneven stress distribution at the interface, which may result in erroneous interfacial fracture resistance values. We have applied a wedge-loaded double-cantilever-beam testing approach to accurately measure the interfacial fracture resistance of adhesively bonded zirconia-based restorative materials. Methods. The interfacial fracture energy GC was determined for adhesively bonded zirconia, graded zirconia and feldspathic ceramic bars. The bonding surfaces were subjected to sandblasting or acid etching treatments. Baseline GC was measured for bonded specimens subjected to 7 days hydration at 37 ◦C. Long-term GC was determined for specimens exposed to 20,000 thermal cycles between 5 and 55 ◦C followed by 2-month aging at 37 ◦C in water. The test data were interpreted with the aid of a 2D finite element fracture analysis. Results. The baseline and long-term GC for graded zirconia was 2–3 and 8 times greater than that for zirconia, respectively. More significantly, both the baseline and long-term GC of graded zirconia were similar to those for feldspathic ceramic. Significance. The interfacial fracture energy of feldspathic ceramic and graded zirconia was controlled by the fracture energy of the resin cement while that of zirconia by the interface. GC for the graded zirconia was as large as for feldspathic ceramic, making it an attractive material for use in dentistry.
    Dental Materials 09/2015; DOI:10.1016/ · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "shear bond test, three-point, four-point and biaxial flexure strength tests, tensile and microtensile bond tests, however, each test method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Shear bond test tends to develop crack in a substrate instead of along the interface due to the non-uniform stress distribution.9 For the microtensile bond strength test, it creates more uniform stress distribution, and it has been proved to be a reliable test for evaluation of bonding quality of composite materials on a variety of substrates.10 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS Blocks of core ceramics (IPS e.max® Press and Lava™ Frame) were fabricated and veneered with their corresponding glass veneers. The bilayered blocks were cut into microbars; 8 mm in length and 1 mm2 in cross-sectional area (n = 30/group). Additionally, monolithic microbars of these two veneers (IPS e.max® Ceram and Lava™ Ceram; n = 30/group) were also prepared. The obtained microbars were tested in tension until fracture, and the fracture surfaces of the microbars were examined with fluorescent black light and scanning electron microscope (SEM) to identify the mode of failure. One-way ANOVA and the Dunnett's T3 test were performed to determine significant differences of the mean microtensile bond strength at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS The mean microtensile bond strength of IPS e.max® Press/IPS e.max® Ceram (43.40 ± 5.51 MPa) was significantly greater than that of Lava™ Frame/Lava™ Ceram (31.71 ± 7.03 MPa)(P<.001). Fluorescent black light and SEM analysis showed that most of the tested microbars failed cohesively in the veneer layer. Furthermore, the bond strength of Lava™ Frame/Lava™ Ceram was comparable to the tensile strength of monolithic glass veneer of Lava™ Ceram, while the bond strength of bilayered IPS e.max® Press/IPS e.max® Ceram was significantly greater than tensile strength of monolithic IPS e.max® Ceram. CONCLUSION Because fracture site occurred mostly in the glass veneer and most failures were away from the interfacial zone, microtensile bond test may not be a suitable test for bonding integrity. Fracture mechanics approach such as fracture toughness of the interface may be more appropriate to represent the bonding quality between two materials.
    The journal of advanced prosthodontics 06/2014; 6(3):151-6. DOI:10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.151 · 0.64 Impact Factor
    • "Silane function is based on the existence of hydroxyl groups on the surface of an inorganic substrate. Due to this, the use of silane function is not applicable with polymer substrates [28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to analyze the shear bond strength of a new composite resin to polymer-based composite substrates using various surface roughnesses and two kinds of polymer matrices. Particulate filler composite resin with cross-linked polymer matrix and fiber-reinforced composite with semi-interpenetrating polymer matrix were used as bonding substrates after being ground to different roughnesses. Substrates were aged in water for one week before bonding to new resin composites. Twelve specimens in the substrate groups were ground with grinding papers of four grits; 320, 800, 1200 and 2400. Corresponding values of surface roughness (Ra) varied from 0.09 to 0.40 for the particulate filler composite resin and 0.07 to 0.96 for the fiber-reinforced composite resin. Characteristic shear bond strength between the new resin and particulate filler composite resin was highest (27.8 MPa) with the roughest surface (Weibull modulus: 2.085). Fiber-reinforced composite showed the highest bond strength (20.8 MPa) with the smoothest surface (Weibull modulus: 4.713). We concluded that surface roughness did not increase the bonding of new resin to the substrate of IPN based fiber-reinforced composite, whereas the roughness contributed to bonding the new resin to the particulate filler composite resin with a cross-linked polymer matrix.
    The Open Dentistry Journal 09/2013; 7(1):126-31. DOI:10.2174/1874210601307010126
Show more