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

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
  • Source
    • "Control group (CN) received no surface treatment. For the DB group the surface was ground using a medium grit abrasive diamond bur 3 using a high speed hand piece under copious airewater irrigation in one direction for 4 s on each surface [16]. And for the SC group the surface was air abraded using Cojet powder, through an intraoral air abrasion device 4 at 90 , at Table 1 Information regarding the materials used in the study. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate which surface treatment and adhesive type might provide the most predictable microshear bond strength results of repair resin composite to lithium disilicate ceramic and a newly introduced resin nanoceramic (RNC).
    Preview · Article · Jun 2015
  • Source
    • "Despite that the remaining free radical effect could be diminished after this storage period [21], the maintained repair bond strength could be referred to the availability of some degree of porosities which allowed better penetration of the intermediate adhesive agent particles. Also, these microporosities could be due to the plasticization and leaching of certain components out of the resin composite during storage [26] [27]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the effect of pre-repair aging periods and intermediate adhesive systems based on different monomers on the repair bond strength of silorane-based resin composite. A total of 32 Filtek P90 (3M ESPE) substrate specimens (4 mm diameter and 4 mm height) were made. Substrate specimens were grouped according to the pre-repair time periods into four groups (n = 8/group): 15 to 30 min, 24 h, 1 month, and 3 months. All substrate specimens were ground flat using a diamond stone and were etched using Scotchbond phosphoric acid etchant (3M ESPE). The specimens of each pre-repair time period were equally distributed among the two repair groups, using either silorane-based (P90 System Adhesive) or acrylamide-based (AdheSE One F, Ivoclar Vivadent) intermediate adhesive systems. Specimens of P90 System adhesive received Filtek P90 as the repair resin composite, and Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) was used with AdheSE One F specimens. Additional specimens were made from the repair resin composite materials to study the cohesive strength. Specimens were sliced into sticks (0.6 ± 0.01 mm2) for microtensile bond strength testing (μTBS). Modes of failure were determined. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures revealed no significant effect for the pre-repair aging periods, intermediate adhesive systems based on different monomers, or their interaction on repair bond strength of silorane-based resin composite. Up to 3 months of pre-aging the repaired silorane-based resin composite had no negative effect on its repair bond strength, even when an intermediate adhesive system based on a different monomer (acrylamide) was used.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015 · The journal of adhesive dentistry
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2014 · Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
Show more