Repair bond strength of a resin composite to alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic

This study compared the microtensile bond strength of a repair resin to an alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur-alpha, Vita) after 3 surface conditioning methods: Group 1, etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 1 minute plus rinsing and drying, followed by application of silane for 5 minutes; group 2, airborne particle abrasion with 110-mm aluminum oxide using a chairside air-abrasion device followed by silane application for 5 minutes; group 3, chairside tribochemical silica coating with 30-mu m SiOx followed by silane application for 5 minutes (N = 30). Group 1 presented the highest mean bond strength (19.7 +/- 3.8 MPa), which was significantly higher than those of groups 2 (10 +/- 2.6 MPa) and 3 (10.4 +/- 4 MPa) (P <.01). Scanning electron microscope analysis of the failure modes demonstrated predominantly mixed types of failures, with adhesive and/or cohesive failures in all experimental groups.

Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic

Statement of problem. It is not clear how different glass ceramic surface pretreatments influence the bonding capacity of various luting agents to these surfaces.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of 3 resin cements to a lithia disilicate-based ceramic submitted to 2 surface conditioning treatments.Material and methods. Eighteen 5 X 6 X 8-mm ceramic (IPS Empress 2) blocks were fabricated according to manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Ceramic blocks were polished and divided into 2 groups (n=9/treatment): no conditioning (no-conditioning/control), or 5% hydrofluoric acid etching for 20 seconds and silanization for 1 minute (HF + SIL). Ceramic blocks were cemented to the composite resin blocks with I self-adhesive universal resin cement (RelyX Unicem) or 1 of 2 resin-based luting agents (Multilink or Panavia F), according to the manufacturer's instructions. The composite resin-ceramic blocks were stored in humidity at 37 degrees C for 7 days and serially sectioned to produce 25 beam specimens per group with a 1.0-mm(2) cross-sectional area. Specimens were thermal cycled (5000 cycles, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C) and tested in tension at 1 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons tests (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (X40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive.Results. The surface conditioning factor was significant (HF+SIL > no-conditioning) (P<.0001). Considering the unconditioned groups, the mu TBS of RelyX Unicem was significantly higher (9.6 +/- 1.9) than that of Multilink (6.2 +/- 1.2) and Panavia F (7.4 +/- 1.9). Previous etching and silanization yielded statistically higher mu TBS values for RelyX Unicem (18.8 +/- 3.5) and Multilink (17.4 +/- 3.0) when compared to Panavia F (15.7 +/- 3.8). Spontaneous debonding after thermal cycling was detected when luting agents were applied to untreated ceramic surfaces.Conclusion. Etching and silanization treatments appear to be crucial for resin bonding to a lithia disilicate-based ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used.

Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions

Objectives. This study evaluated the effect of two different surface conditioning methods on the repair bond strength of a bis-GMA-adduct/bis-EMA/TEGDMA based resin composite after three aging conditions.Methods. Thirty-six composite resin blocks (Esthet X, Dentsply) were prepared (5 mm x 6 mm x 6 mm) and randomly assigned into three groups for aging process: (a) immersion in citric acid (pH 3.0 at 37 degrees C, 1 week) (CA); (b) boiling in water for 8h (BW) and (c) thermocycling (x5000, 5-55 degrees C, dwell time: 30s) (TC). After aging, the blocks were assigned to one of the following surface conditioning methods: (1) silica coating (30 mu m SiOx) (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silane (ESPE-Sil) (CJ), (2) phosphoric acid + adhesive resin (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) (PA). Resin composite (Esthet.X (R)) was bonded to the conditioned substrates incrementally and light polymerized. The experimental groups formed were as follows: Gr1:CA + PA; Gr2:CA + CJ Gr3:BW + PA; Gr4: BW + CJ; Gr5:TC + PA; Gr6: TC + CJ. The specimens were sectioned in two axes (x and y) with a diamond disc under coolant irrigation in order to obtain non-trimmed bar specimens (sticks, 10 mm x 1 mm x 1 mm) with 1 mm(2) of bonding area. The microtensile test was accomplished in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 0.5 mm min(-1)).Results. The means and standard deviations of bond strength (MPa +/- S.D.) per group were as follows: Gr1: 25.5 +/- 10.3; Gr2: 46.3 +/- 10.1; Gr3: 21.7 +/- 7.1; Gr4: 52.3 +/- 15.1; GrS: 16.1 +/- 5.1; Gr6, 49.6 +/- 13.5. The silica coated groups showed significantly higher mean bond values after all three aging conditions (p < 0.0001) (two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests, alpha = 0.05). The interaction effect revealed significant influence of TC aging on both silica coated and acid etched groups compared to the other aging methods (p < 0.032). Citric acid was the least aggressive aging medium.Significance. Chairside silica coating and silanization provided higher resin-resin bond strength values compared to acid etching with phosphoric acid followed by adhesive resin applications. Thermocycling the composite substrates resulted in the lowest repair bond strength compared to citric acid challenge or boiling in water. (C) 2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.