Bond strength durability of a resin composite on a reinforced ceramic using various repair systems.

University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Dentistry and Dental Hygiene, Clinical Dental Biomaterials, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.
Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials (Impact Factor: 2.88). 09/2009; 25(12):1477-83. DOI: 10.1016/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study compared the durability of repair bond strength of a resin composite to a reinforced ceramic after three repair systems.
Alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic blocks (Vitadur-alpha) (N=30) were randomly divided into three groups according to the repair method: PR-Porcelain Repair Kit (Bisco) [etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid+silanization+adhesive]; CJ-CoJet Repair Kit (3M ESPE) [(chairside silica coating with 30microm SiO(2)+silanization (ESPE)-Sil)+adhesive (Visio-Bond)]; CL-Clearfil Repair Kit [diamond surface roughening, etching with 40% H(3)PO(4)+Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator+Clearfil SE Bond)]. Resin composite was photo-polymerized on each conditioned ceramic block. Non-trimmed beam specimens were produced for the microtensile bond strength (microTBS) tests. In order to study the hydrolytic durability of the repair methods, the beam specimens obtained from each block were randomly assigned to two conditions. Half of the specimens were tested either immediately after beam production (Dry) or after long-term water storage (37 degrees C, 150 days) followed by thermocyling (12,000 cycles, 5-55 degrees C) in a universal testing machine (1mm/min). Failure types were analyzed under an optical microscope and SEM.
microTBS results were significantly affected by the repair method (p=0.0001) and the aging conditions (p=0.0001) (two-way ANOVA, Tukey's test). In dry testing conditions, PR method showed significantly higher (p<0.001) repair bond strength (19.8+/-3.8MPa) than those of CJ and CL (12.4+/-4.7 and 9.9+/-2.9, respectively). After long-term water storage and thermocycling, CJ revealed significantly higher results (14.5+/-3.1MPa) than those of PR (12.1+/-2.6MPa) (p<0.01) and CL (4.2+/-2.1MPa) (p<0.001). In all groups when tested in dry conditions, cohesive failure in the composite accompanied with adhesive failure at the interface (mixed failures), was frequently observed (76%, 80%, 65% for PR, CJ and CL, respectively). After aging conditions, while the specimens treated with PR and CJ presented primarily mixed failure types (52% and 87%, respectively), CL group presented mainly complete adhesive failures at the interface (70%).
Hydrolytic stability of the repair method based on silica coating and silanization was superior to the other repair strategies for the ceramic tested.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences. 10/2014; 5(4):171-5.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors' intention was to present ceramic restoration repair as a reliable, low-cost and low-risk procedure, by demonstrating 3 cases in the aesthetic zone. Intraoral ceramic repair was chosen for the small porcelain fracture of the maxillary left central incisor and for the large porcelain surface detachment of the maxillary left lateral incisor, since patients did not want to replace the fixed denture. The third case presented an easy way to correct orthodontic treatment relapse when ceramic restoration have already been placed. Gaps formed between maxillary left lateral incisor and canine were closed using the same adhesion protocol. The sequence of treatment is demonstrated altering the basic repair protocol according to the needs of each case. The final outcome of the repair with composite resin was an aesthetic alternative and the patients were fully satisfied.
    Balkan Journal of Stomatology. 01/2012; 16:103-108.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High-strength all-ceramic materials are commonly used in dentistry. When complications occur in an all-ceramic restoration, the restoration is usually replaced. This article describes the time-saving ability and cost-effectiveness of this novel technique for the addition of a pontic in two complicated clinical cases. Turkom-Cera(™) [Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn. Bhd.] with aluminum oxide (99.98%) is an all-ceramic system that offers the option of addition of a new pontic to the sintered framework. The new pontic was cut off from an alumina blank [Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn. Bhd.], moistened, and attached to the framework using alumina gel [Turkom-Ceramic (M) Sdn. Bhd.]. The framework was veneered with veneering porcelain (Vita VM 7; VITA Zahnfabrik). The two cases presented here involving the addition of a pontic to sintered framework were followed up for at least 1 year. No complication was detected or reported by the patients. Alumina- and zirconia-based ceramics are particularly suitable for for all-ceramic restorations in high-stress bearing areas. However, replacement of a failed all-ceramic restoration is not the most practical solution, considering both cost and tooth-related factors. This attractive feature of the Turkom-Cera allows the repair of a fractured ceramic coping or the addition of a new pontic to restorations.
    European journal of dentistry. 04/2013; 7(2):233-8.


Available from
May 26, 2014