The study on the shear bond strength of resin and porcelain to Titanium

Ji-Man Park; Yeong-Soon Kim; Sul-Gi Jun; Eun-Jin Park

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.1.46

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(1) > 1034608

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Kim, Jun, and Park: The study on the shear bond strength of resin and porcelain to Titanium

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(1):46-52.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.1.46

The study on the shear bond strength of resin and porcelain to Titanium

Ji-Man Park, DDS, MSD¹, Yeong-Soon Kim, DDS², Sul-Gi Jun, DDS², Eun-Jin Park, MSc, DDS, PhD^3,^∗

^¹Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University

^²Graduate Student, Department of Dental Prosthodontics, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University

^³Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Prosthodontics, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University

Corresponding Author: Eun-Jin Park Department of Dental Prosthodontics, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, 911-1 Mok-6-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 158-710, Korea +82 2 2650 5042: e-mail, prosth@ewha.ac.kr

Received 29 September 200822 December 2008 Accepted 30 December 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

Recently, titanium has become popular as superstructure material in implant dentistry because titanium superstructure can be easily milled by means of computer-aided design and manufacture (CAD/CAM) technique. But retention form such as nail head or bead cannot be cut as a result of technical limitation of CAD/CAM milling and bond strength between titanium and porcelain is not as strong as that of conventional gold or metal alloy.

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of three different materials: heat curing resin, composite resin, porcelain which were bonded to grade II commercially pure Titanium (CP - Ti).

Material and methods

Thirty seven CP - Ti discs with 9 mm diameter, 10 mm height were divided into three groups and were bonded with heat curing resin (Lucitone 199), indirect composite resin (Sinfony), and porcelain (Triceram) which were mounted in a former with 7 mm diameter and 1 mm height. Samples were thermocycled for 1000 cycles at between 5 - 55℃. Shear bond strength (MPa) was measured with Instron Universal Testing Machine with cross head speed of 1 mm/min. The failure pattern was observed at the fractured surface and divided into adhesive, cohesive, and combination failure. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's multiple range test (α = 0.05).

Results

Lucitone 199 (17.82 ± 5.13 MPa) showed the highest shear bond strength, followed by Triceram (12.97 ± 2.11 MPa), and Sinfony (6.00 ± 1.31 MPa). Most of the failure patterns in Lucitone 199 and Sinfony group were adhesive failure, whereas those in Triceram group were combination failure.

Conclusion

Heat curing resin formed the strongest bond to titanium which is used as a CAD/CAM milling block. But the bond strength is still low compared with the bond utilizing mechanical interlocking and there are many adhesive failures which suggest that more studies to enhance bond strength are needed. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:46-52)

Keywords: Titanium, Heat curing resin, Indirect composite resin, Porcelain, Thermocycling, Shear bond strength

REFERENCES

1.Taira Y., Yanagida H., Matsumura H., Yoshida K., Atsuta M., Suzuki S. Adhesive bonding of titanium with a thione-phosphate dual functional primer and self-curing luting agents. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000. 108:456–60.

2.Kasemo B. Biocompatibility of titanium implants: surface science aspects. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 49:832–7.

3.Reclaru L., Meyer JM. Study of corrosion between a titanium implant and dental alloys. J Dent. 1994. 22:159–68.

4.Lautenschlager EP., Monaghan P. Titanium and titanium alloys as dental materials. Int Dent J. 1993. 43:245–53.

5.Cecconi BT., Koeppen RG., Phoenix RD., Cecconi ML. Casting titanium partial denture frameworks: a radiographic evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 87:277–80.

6.Low D., Sumii T., Swain M. Thermal expansion coefficient of titanium casting. J Oral Rehabil. 2001. 28:239–42.

7.Andersson M., Bergman B., Bessing C., Ericson G., Lundquist P., Nilson H. Clinical results with titanium crowns fabricated with machine duplication and spark erosion. Acta Odontol Scand. 1989. 47:279–86.

8.Bergman B., Nilson H., Andersson M. A longitudinal clinical study of Procera ceramic-veneered titanium copings. Int J Prosthodont. 1999. 12:135–9.

9.Lovgren R., Andersson B., Carlsson GE., Odman P. Prospective clinical 5-year study of ceramic-veneered titanium restorations with the Procera system. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:514–21.

10.Bonnard P., Hermans M., Adriaenssens P., Daelemans P., Malevez C. Anterior esthetic rehabilitation on teeth and dental implants optimized with Procera technology: a case report. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2001. 13:163–71.

11.Ciftci Y., Canay S., Hersek N. Shear bond strength evaluation of different veneering systems on Ni-Cr alloys. J Prosthodont. 2007. 16:31–6.

12.Ohkubo C., Watanabe I., Hosoi T., Okabe T. Shear bond strengths of polymethyl methacrylate to cast titanium and cobalt-chromium frameworks using five metal primers. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 83:50–7.

13.Yoshida K., Kamada K., Taira Y., Atsuta M. Effect of three adhesive primers on the bond strengths of four light-activated opaque resins to noble alloy. J Oral Rehabil. 2001. 28:168–73.

14.Matsumura H., Yanagida H., Tanoue N., Atsuta M., Shimoe S. Shear bond strength of resin composite veneering material to gold alloy with varying metal surface preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2001. 86:315–9.

15.Park SY., Jeon YC., Jeong CM. Comparison of the bond strength of ceramics fused to titanium and Ni-Cr alloy. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2003. 41:89–98.

16.Adachi M., Mackert JR Jr., Parry EE., Fairhurst CW. Oxide adherence and porcelain bonding to titanium and Ti-6Al-4V alloy. J Dent Res. 1990. 69:1230–5.

17.Kimura H., Horng CJ., Okazaki M., Takahashi J. Oxidation effects on porcelain-titanium interface reactions and bond strength. Dent Mater J. 1990. 9:91–9.

18.Doerr CL., Hilton TJ., Hermesch CB. Effect of thermocycling on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. Am J Dent. 1996. 9:19–21.

19.Kim JY., Pfeiffer P., Niedermeier W. Effect of laboratory procedures and thermocycling on the shear bond strength of resin-metal bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 90:184–9.

Fig. 1

Materials used in this study. (a) Grade II CP-Ti disc, (b) Lucitone 199, (c) Sinfony, (d) Triceram

Fig. 2

Shear bond strength of Lucitone, Sinfony, and Triceram.

Fig. 3

Bonding failure patterns. (a) Lucitone 199, adhesive failure (b) Sinfony, adhesive failure (c) Triceram, combination failure (d) Lucitone 199, combination failure (e) Sinfony, combination failure (f) Triceram, cohesive failure

Table I.

Materials used in this study

Material	Manufacturer
Grade II commercially pure titanium	Dynamet, Santa Fe Springs, CA, USA
Lucitone 199	DENTSPLY Trubyte, York, USA
Sinfony	3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany
Triceram	Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany

Table II.

Surface treatment conditions for experimental groups

Material	Surface treatment	Surface conditions
Lucitone 199	Retention groove	Metal primer
Sinfony	Rocatec	ESPE Sil
Triceram	Airborne-particle abrasion	Triceram bonder

Table III.

One-way ANOVA of intergroup by Scheffe ´method

Material (1)	Material (2)	Mean Difference (1) - (2)	Std. Error	Sig.
Lucitone 199	Sinfony	11.81973∗	1.2838	.000
	Triceram	4.84678∗	1.40199	.006
Sinfony	Lucitone199	-11.81973∗	1.2838	.000
	Triceram	-6.97295∗	1.38004	.000
Triceram	Lucitone199	-4.84678∗	1.40199	.006
	Sinfony	-6.97295∗	1.38004	.000

^∗ Significant difference at 95% survival rate by Scheffe ´method.

Table IV.

Result of multiple regression analysis

	Mean Difference	SE	t	P - value
Lucitone 199	12.014	1.272	9.447	0.000
Triceram	7.559	1.420	5.325	0.000
Sinfony	-	-	-	-
L/S ratio	53.466	37.348	1.432	0.162

F = 30.181 R²= 0.733 P - value = .000

Table V.

Bonding failure patterns

Failure	Lucitone 199	Sinfony	Triceram
Adhesive	10	9	0
Cohesive	0	0	1
Combination	3	4	10
Total	13	13	11

TOOLS

Similar articles