Effect of adhesive primers on bonding strength of heat cure denture base resin to cast titanium and cobalt-chromium alloy

Kim, Su-Sung; Vang, Mong-Sook; Yang, Hong-So; Park, Sang-Won; Lim, Hyun-Pil

doi:10.4047/jap.2009.1.1.41

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have revealed that thermal stress induced by thermocycling weakens the adhesive bonding between resin-based materials and cast CoCr alloys, but priming with 10-methacryloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) significantly improved the bonding durability [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . However, no information is available regarding adhesive bonding between resin composites and laser-sintered Co-Cr alloys.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study between laser sintering and casting for retention of resin composite veneers to cobalt-chromium alloy

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the bond strengths between resin composite veneer and laser-sintered cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloy with and without retention devices (Laser-R and Laser-N respectively). Cast Co-Cr alloy with and without retention devices (Cast-R and Cast-N respectively) were also prepared for fabrication technique comparison. Disk-shaped Co-Cr alloy specimens were air-abraded with alumina and veneered with a veneering system, Estenia C&B (ES) or Ceramage (CE). After 20,000 thermocycles, tensile testing was performed. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and multiple comparison test. When no retention devices were present, no significant differences were observed between Laser-N/ES and Cast-N/ES, or between Laser-N/CE and Cast-N/CE, but ES exhibited significantly higher bond strength than CE. With retention devices, Laser-R/ES, Cast-R/ES and Laser-R/CE showed no significant differences, and their retention strengths were significantly higher than that of Cast-R/CE. Compared to cast Co-Cr alloy, laser-sintered Co-Cr alloy with retention devices provided better retention durability for resin composite-veneered prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study between laser sintering and casting for retention of resin composite veneers to cobalt-chromium alloy

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been reported that 6-MHPA promotes adhesive bonding to base metals, but 10-MDDT has an affinity for noble metals rather than base metals [28]. The use of primers containing MDP improved the retention strength between some resin-based materials and cast CoCr alloy [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], and the effect of MDP as an adhesivepromoting monomer for cast Co-Cr alloy was higher than that of 6-MHPA [24,29]. The present results also suggest that MDP is superior to 6-MHPA as an adhesive-promoting monomer for a laser-sintered Co-Cr alloy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have revealed that priming with 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) significantly improved the retention strength between some resin-based materials and cast Co-Cr alloy [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. The authors previously reported that laser-sintered Co-Cr alloy specimens with retention devices provided better retention and higher retention strength than cast Co-Cr alloy specimens with retention beads [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention strength between veneering resin composites and laser-sintered cobalt–chromium alloy

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the retention strength between a resin composite veneering material and three types of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloy substrates. Co-Cr alloy specimens with 81 retention devices (LSR), with 144 retention devices (LDR), and without retention device (LN) were fabricated using a laser-sintering system. The specimens were air-abraded with alumina, conditioned with a primer [Alloy primer (AP) or M.L. primer (ML)], and veneered with a light-polymerized resin composite (Gradia). Three control groups (LSR-N, LDR-N, and LN-N) without primer were also prepared. After 20,000 thermocycles in 4 and 60 °C water, tensile retention strengths were determined using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and a post hoc Tukey-Kramer HSD test (α = 0.05, n = 8). The highest retention strengths were obtained in LSR-AP (28.3 MPa), LSR-ML (23.3 MPa), LDR-AP (26.9 MPa), and LDR-ML (27.8 MPa), and these values were not significantly different. In the absence of a retention device, the retention strengths were significantly different in the following order: LN-N (0.1 MPa) < LN-ML (12.4 MPa) < LN-AP (20.2 MPa). The specimens without primer were significantly different in the following order: LN-N (0.1 MPa) < LSR-N (15.4 MPa), LDR-N (17.1 MPa). No significant difference was found between the numbers of retention devices, which were 81 and 144. In conclusion, the combined use of the primers and the retention devices is recommended when the laser-sintered Co-Cr alloy is veneered with the resin composite materials to maximize the retention strength.

show abstract

“…Several approaches have been developed to improve bond strength between dental alloys and PMMA; these approaches are usually based on modifying the topography (mechanical) and/or chemical composition of the alloy surface to increase the alloy‐polymer interaction . Topographic irregularities and surface roughness can be achieved by acid etching, air‐abrasion or by adding topographic features including beads, posts, meshes, and bars .…”

Section: The Bond Strengths Between Dental Alloys (Ti and Cocr) And Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility and Durability of Diazonium Adhesives on Dental Alloys

Oweis

Algizani

Mezour

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose A new type of diazonium‐based adhesive has been recently developed by our team to bind dental alloys (Titanium, stainless steel, and cobalt chromium) to dental polymers. Here, we explored the endurance of the resulting adhesive after thermal‐cycling and autoclave aging. Materials and Methods Polished samples of titanium (Ti), stainless steel (SS) and cobalt chromium (Co‐Cr) were coated with a diazonium‐based adhesive. Untreated samples served as controls (n = 12 per each condition). X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was performed to characterize the elemental compositions of the different surfaces. Biocompatibility of the coated alloys was assessed with human gingival fibroblasts (HGF). Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) and total organic carbon (TOC) analyses were used to quantify the ions and organic matters released from the diazonium coated alloys. Endurance of the adhesives was assessed by exposing the samples to autoclaving and thermal‐cycling. The tensile strength of the poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA)‐alloy bond was also tested. Results Results of mechanical testing demonstrated a higher endurance of the coated CoCr, Ti, and SS compared to the uncoated alloys. The human fibroblasts cultured on the substrates remained alive and metabolically active, and the coatings did not release significant amounts of toxic chemicals in solutions. Conclusions The results further support the use of diazonium‐based adhesives as new coupling agents for dental applications.

show abstract

Effect of adhesive primers on bonding strength of heat cure denture base resin to cast titanium and cobalt-chromium alloy

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

Comparative study between laser sintering and casting for retention of resin composite veneers to cobalt-chromium alloy

Comparative study between laser sintering and casting for retention of resin composite veneers to cobalt-chromium alloy

Retention strength between veneering resin composites and laser-sintered cobalt–chromium alloy

Biocompatibility and Durability of Diazonium Adhesives on Dental Alloys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About