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: 3.77). 09/2009; 25(12):1477-83. DOI: 10.1016/
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Mutlu Özcan, Feb 18, 2014
51 Reads
  • Source
    • "The present study stated that Cojet and Clearfil system applications increased bond strength between zirconia and composite resin. This result did not coincide with the conclusions of Ozcan et al. [25]. They evaluated the durability of repair bond strength of a composite to ceramic after different repair systems. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of composite resin in five different repair systems. Materials and methods: Sixty specimens (7 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height) of zirconia ceramic were fabricated. All specimen surfaces were prepared with a 30 µm fine diamond rotary cutting instrument with water irrigation for 10 s and dried with oil-free air. Specimens were then randomly divided into six groups for the following different intra-oral repair systems (n = 10): Group 1, control group; Group 2, Cojet system (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany); Group 3, Cimara® System (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany); Group 4, Z-Prime Plus System (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL); Group 5, Clearfil™ System (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan); and Group 6, Z-Bond System (Danville, CA). After surface conditioning, a composite resin Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) was applied to the zirconia surface using a cylindrical mold (5 mm in diameter and 3 mm in length) and incrementally filled up, according to the manufacturer's instructions of each intra-oral system. Each specimen was subjected to a shear load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post-hoc tests were used to analyze the bond strength values. Results: There were significant differences between Groups 2-6 and Group 1. The highest bond strength values were obtained with Group 2 (17.26 ± 3.22) and Group 3 (17.31 ± 3.62), while the lowest values were observed with Group 1 (8.96 ± 1.62) and Group 6 (12.85 ± 3.95). Conclusion: All repair systems tested increased the bond strength values between zirconia and composite resin that used surface grinding with a diamond bur.
    Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 11/2014; 73(1):1-5. DOI:10.3109/00016357.2014.946963 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Discs of 3 mm thickness were obtained by sectioning the blocks using a low speed isomet saw (Isomet 1000, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL, USA). The repaired surfaces were ground finished with 1200-grit silicon carbide abrasive papers (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) under water cooling for surface standardization.[13] They were then ultrasonically cleaned (Vitasonic II, Vita, Bad Säckingen, Germany) in deionized water for 10 min to remove loose particles. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To investigate the repair potential of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) ceramic and composite blocks using a silane-containing bonding agent with different repair protocols. Materials and methods: Twenty-four discs were constructed from CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. The discs were divided into six groups according to surface pre-treatment employed; GI: Diamond stone roughening (SR), GII: SR+ silanization (SR+S), GIII: Hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), GIV: HF+ silanization (HF+S), GV: Silica coating (SC), GVI: SC+ silanization (SC+S). Silane-containing bonding agent (Single Bond Universal adhesive, 3M ESPE) was applied to the pre-treated discs. Prior to light curing, irises were cut from tygon tubes (internal diameter = 0.8 mm and height = 0.5 mm) and mounted on each treated surface. Nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350(XT), 3M ESPE) was packed into the cylinder lumen and light-cured (n = 10). The specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength testing (μ-SBS) using universal testing machine. Failure modes of the fractured specimens were analyzed using field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Eight representative discs were prepared to analyze the effect of surface treatments on surface topography using FESEM. μ-SBS results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukeys post-hoc test. Results: Three-way ANOVA results showed that the materials, surface pre-treatment protocols, and silanization step had a statistically significant effect on the mean μ-SBS values at P ≤ 0.001. For ceramic discs, the groups were ranked; GIV (24.45 ± 7.35)> GVI ((20.18 ± 2.84)> GV (7.14 ± 14)= GII (6.72 ± 1.91)=GI (6.34 ± 2.21)=GIII (5.72 ± 2.18). For composite discs, groups were ranked; GI (24.98 ± 7.69)=GVI (24.84 ± 7.00) >GII (15.85 ± 5.29) =GV (14.65 ± 4.5)= GIV (14.24 ± 2.95)≥ GIII ((9.37 ± 2.78). Conclusion: The additional silanization step cannot be omitted if the repair protocol comprises of either hydrofluoric acid etching or silica coating for both CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. However, this step can be suppressed by using silane-containing adhesive with diamond stone roughened repair protocol.
    European journal of dentistry 03/2014; 8(1):44-52. DOI:10.4103/1305-7456.126240
  • Source
    • "Various repair techniques have been introduced instead of the re-constructing the prostheses because of the time-consuming procedure and higher cost.[161718] Thus, a myriad of studies have been reported on the repair of feldspathic,[192021] alumina-reinforced feldspathic,[22] lithiumdisilicate glass,[2324] alumina,[24] zirconia[24] and leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramics[2526] in the literature. "
    [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. DOI:10.4103/1305-7456.110194
Show more