Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates

Haselton, Debra R.; Diaz‐Arnold, Ana M.; Dunne, James T.

doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.119843

Cited by 100 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors (1,6,16,17) demonstrate that silica coating always improves adhesion by creating a homogeneous microretentive surface, containing a degree of silica, Figure 3, providing both a mechanical and chemical retention which would explain this increase in the oxide-ceramic to resin-cement bond strength. In all these studies, the Rocatec (particles of 110 µm) or the CoJet System (30 µm) were used for silica coating the oxide ceramics (6,17,18). However, as Hummel and Kern (2) explain, although the resulting bond strength after silica-coating is initially acceptable, after 150 days of storage and thermocycling the bond strength diminished considerably.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro experimental study of bonding between aluminium oxide ceramics and resin cements

Román-Rodríguez¹,

Roig-Vanaclocha²,

Fons-Font³

et al. 2009

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate bond strengths of different resin cements to two aluminum oxide-based ceramics. Methods: One hundred ten ceramic cylinders were produced and given four different surface treatments. Resin cement cylinders were then bonded to the ceramic cylinders using different resin cements and the bond strength was determined by shear testing to the breaking point. We were thus able to obtain results for the different combinations of porcelain, surface treatments and cements. All data was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two independent samples and the Bonferroni correction applied (a=0.01). An optical microscopy study was carried out to analyze the type of failure, and an electronic microscopy examination was carried out in order to evaluate the changes produced in the ceramic by the different surface treatments. Results: The best values corresponded to the control group, composed of silicate ceramics combined with Variolink II resin cement. In-Ceram Alumina showed no significant differences with respect to the type of cement applied. Procera AllCeram obtained the best values when silica coated using the CoJet System and applying Variolink II, or when sandblasted and applying Clearfil SE Bond + Porcelain Bond Activator and Panavia F cement. Significance: Surface treatment modifies the ceramic surface and influences the bond strength, as does the type of cement used. Silica coating is recommended to improve adhesion to Procera AllCeram, applying Variolink II, or sandblasting plus resin cement containing MDP (Panavia F).

show abstract

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro experimental study of bonding between aluminium oxide ceramics and resin cements

Román-Rodríguez¹,

Roig-Vanaclocha²,

Fons-Font³

et al. 2009

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3,[7][8] Another treatment recommended for ceramic surfaces involves airborne particle abrasion with 50-lm aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ) particles to aid in mechanical retention. [7][8][9][10][11] After air abrasion, the ceramic surface must be coated with a suitable silane, which forms chemical bonds between the inorganic phase of the ceramic and the organic phase of the resin cement. 8,[12][13][14] Clinically, when ceramic restorations are cemented and exposed to the oral environment, factors that could result in fatigue may influence their physical and mechanical properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Surface Treatments, Thermocycling, and Cyclic Loading on the Bond Strength of a Resin Cement Bonded to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

Guarda

Correr²,

Gonçalves³

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

136

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current results indicate that acid etching is a better option than air abrasion when bonding IPS e.max Press ceramic to dual-cure RelyX ARC resin cement. However, both fatigue and thermocycling decrease the bond strength. SUMMARYObjectives: The aim of this present study was to investigate the effect of two surface treatments, fatigue and thermocycling, on the microtensile bond strength of a newly introduced lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) and a dual-cured resin cement.Methods: A total of 18 ceramic blocks (10 mm long 3 7 mm wide 3 3.0 mm thick) were fabricated and divided into six groups (n=3): groups 1, 2, and 3-air particle abraded for five seconds with 50-lm aluminum oxide particles; groups 4, 5, and 6-acid etched with 10%

show abstract

“…19,20 However, the actual mode of disruption of the interface is virtually never a pure shear deformation. Nevertheless, the resultant data could be used for ranking materials and protocols within a single study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Composite Resin to Amalgam

Özcan¹,

Koolman²,

Aladağ³

et al. 2011

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Repairing amalgam restorations with composite resins using surface conditioning methods is a conservative treatment approach. This study investigated the effects of different conditioning methods that could be used for repair of amalgam fractures. Amalgam (N=96) was condensed into cavities within autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and the exposed surface of each specimen (diameter, 6 mm; thickness, 2 mm) was ground finished. The specimens were randomly divided into nine experimental groups (n=12 per group), depending on the conditioning method used. The control group had natural central incisors with amalgam (n=12). The combination of the following conditioning methods was tested: silicacoating (Sc), sandblasting (Sb), metal primers, coupling agents, fiber (Fb) application, and opaquers (O). Five types of silanes, metal primers, or adhesives (Visiobond [V], Porcelain Photobond [PP], Alloy Primer [AP], Unibond sealer [Us], ESPE-Sil [ES]), and four opaquers, namely, Clearfil St Opaquer (CstO), Sinfony (S), Miris (M), and an experimental Opaquer (EO-Cavex), were used. The groups were as follows: group 1, Sc+ES+S+V; group 2, Sc+ES+CstO+V; group 3, Sc+ES+M+V; group 4, Sc+ES+EO+V; group 5, Sb+AP+S; group 6, Sb+AP+PP+CstO; group 7, Sc+ES+S+Fb+V+Fb; group 8-control, SC+ES+V; and group 9, Etch+Sc+ES+S+Us. One repair composite was used for all groups (Clearfil Photo Bond Posterior, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). Shear bond strengths (SBSs) (MPa ± SD) were evaluated after 5 weeks of water storage (analysis of variance [ANOVA], Tukey honestly significant differences [HSD], α=0.05). Group 1 exhibited significantly higher values (35.5 ± 4.1) than were seen in group 4 (19.4 ± 8.9), group 6 (19.1 ± 7.8), and group 8 (20.1 ± 4.1) (p<0.05). Group 9 exhibited significantly lower values (8.3 ± 3.4) than were noted in groups 1 to 3 (35.5 ± 4.1; 27 ± 12.5; 24.4 ± 5.1, respectively) (p<0.05). Group 7 (16.4 ± 5.9) showed significantly lower values than were observed in group 1 (35.5 ± 4.1) (p<0.05). Surface conditioning techniques affected the bond strengths of composite adhesion to amalgam. Experimental opaquer exhibited lower values. Leaving a small border of enamel around the restoration decreased the bond strength.

show abstract

Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates

Cited by 100 publications

References 22 publications

In vitro experimental study of bonding between aluminium oxide ceramics and resin cements

In vitro experimental study of bonding between aluminium oxide ceramics and resin cements

Effects of Surface Treatments, Thermocycling, and Cyclic Loading on the Bond Strength of a Resin Cement Bonded to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

Effects of Different Surface Conditioning Methods on the Bond Strength of Composite Resin to Amalgam

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About