The effect of silane treatment timing and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of resin cement to porcelain

Young-Seon Ro; Jae-Jun Ryu; Kyu-Won Suh

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.1.61

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(1) > 1034610

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Ro, Ryu, and Suh: The effect of silane treatment timing and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of resin cement to porcelain

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(1):61-69.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.1.61

The effect of silane treatment timing and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of resin cement to porcelain

Young-Seon Ro, DDS, MSD¹, Jae-Jun Ryu, DDS, MSD, PhD^2,^∗, Kyu-Won Suh, MSD, DDS, PhD²

^¹Graduate Student, Major in Dentistry, Department of Medical Science, Graduated School, Korea University

^²Professor, Department of Medical Science, Graduated School, Korea University

Corresponding Author: Jae-Jun Ryu Korea University Ansan Hospital, Gojan 1-Dong, Danwon-Gu, Gyunggi-Do, 152-707, Korea +82 31 412 5370: e-mail, koprosth@unitel.co.kr

Received 20 October 200813 January 2009 Accepted 14 January 2009

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

Porcelain veneers have become a popular treatment modality for aesthetic anterior prosthesis. Fitting porcelain veneers in the mouth usually involve a try-in appointment, which frequently results in salivary contamination of fitting surfaces.

Purpose

An in vitro study was carried out to investigate the effect of silane treatment timing and saliva contamination on the resin bond strength to porcelain veneer surface.

Material and methods

Cylindrical test specimens (n = 360) and rectangular test specimens (n = 5) were prepared for shear bond test and contact angle analysis. Whole cylindrical specimens divided into 20 groups, each of which received a different surface treatment and/or storage condition. The composite resin cement stubs were light-polymerized onto porcelain adherends. The shear bond strengths of cemented stubs were measured after dry storage and thermocycling (3,000 cycles) between 5 and 55℃. The silane and their reactions were chemically monitored by using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy analysis (FTIR) and contact angle analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett's multiple comparison were used to analyze the data.

Results

FT-IR analysis showed that salivary contamination and silane treatment timing did not affect the surface interactions of silane. Observed water contact angles were lower on the saliva contaminated porcelain surface and the addition of 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds on saliva contaminated porcelain increased the degree of contact angle. Silane applied to the porcelain, a few days before cementation, resulted in increasing the bond strength after thermocycling.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that it would be better to protect porcelain prosthesis before saliva contamination with silane treatment and to clean the contaminated surface by use of phosphoric acid. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:61-9)

Go to :

Keywords: Salivary contamination, Silane, Contact angle, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy analysis (FT-IR).

REFERENCES

1.Groten M., Pro ¨ bster L. The influence of different cementation modes on the fracture resistance of feldspathic ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1997. 10:169–77.

2.Pisani-Proenca J., Erhardt MC., Valandro LF., Gutierrez-Aceves G., Bolanos-Carmona MV., Del Castillo-Salmeron R., Bottino MA. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2006. 96:412–7.

3.Koenig JL., Emadipour H. Mechanical characterization of the interfacial strength of glass-reinforced composites. Polymer Composites. 1985. 6:142–50.

4.Hayakawa T., Horie K., Aida M., Kanaya H., Kobayashi T., Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of resin to dental porcelain. Dent Mater. 1992. 8:238–40.

5.Della Bona A., Anusavice KJ., Mecholsky JJ Jr. Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Dent Mater. 2003. 19:693–9.

6.Nicholls JI. Tensile bond of resin cements to porcelain veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 60:443–7.

7.Quaas AC., Yang B., Kern M. Panavia F 2.0 bonding to contaminated zirconia ceramic after different cleaning procedures. Dent Mater. 2007. 23:506–12.

8.Silverstone LM., Hicks MJ., Featherstone MJ. Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: an SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985. 110:329–32.

9.Aboush YE. Removing saliva contamination from porcelain veneers before bonding. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:649–53.

10.Matinlinna JP., Lassila LV., Vallittu PK. Evaluation of five dental silanes on bonding a luting cement onto silica-coated titanium. J Dent. 2006. 34:721–6.

11.Anagnostopoulos T., Eliades G., Palaghias G. Composition, reactivity and surface interactions of three dental silane primers. Dent Mater. 1993. 9:182–90.

12.Hooshmand T., van Noort R., Keshvad A. Storage effect of a pre-activated silane on the resin to ceramic bond. Dent Mater. 2004. 20:635–42.

13.Kato H., Matsumura H., Tanaka T., Atsuta M. Bond strength and durability of porcelain bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 75:163–8.

14.Nakamura S., Yoshida K., Kamada K., Atsuta M. Bonding between resin luting cement and glass infiltrated alumina-reinforced ceramics with silane coupling agent. J Oral Rehabil. 2004. 31:785–9.

15.Kerr C., Walker P. Some aspects of silane technology of surface coatings and adhesives. Allen KA, editor. Adhesion 12,. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers;1987. p. 17–38.

16.Plueddeman EP. Catalytic effects in bonding thermosetting resins to silane treated fillers. Deanin RD, Shott NR, editors. Fillers and reinforcements for plastics. Advances in Chemistry Series 134. Washington DC: Am Chem Soc;1974. p. 86–94.

17.Ishida H. Structural gradient In the silane coupling agent layers and its influence on the mechanical and physical properties of composites. Ishida H, Kumar G, editors. Molecular characterization of composite interface. New York: Plenum Press;1985. p. 25–50.

18.Ishida H., Koenig JL. A Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopic study of the hydrolytic stability of silane coupling agents on E-glass fibers. J Polymer Sci: Polymer Physics. 1980. 18:1931–43.

19.Calamia JR. Etched porcelain veneers: the current state of the art. Quintessence Int. 1985. 16:5–12.

20.Swift B., Walls AW., McCabe JF. Porcelain veneers: the effects of contaminants and cleaning regimens on the bond strength of porcelain to composite. Br Dent J. 1953. 179:203–8.

Go to :

Fig. 1.

Schematic representation of a strong chemical bond between the dental porcelain and resin composite can be achieved by treatment with a silane coupling agent.

undefined

Fig. 2.

Schematic diagram of the specimens with different surface treatment. Specimen; Sandblasting + Hydrofluoric acid etching.

undefined

Fig. 3.

The FTIR - ATR spectra of the silane with and without saliva contamination. A, 60 seconds after contamination; B, after 24 hour storage in drying condition; C, after 48 hour storage in drying condition; D, after 1 week storage in drying condition.

undefined

Fig. 4.

A, Contact angle data for different surface treatment. B, Contact angle photograph of P3 group. a) silane application, b) saliva contamination after silane application, c) phosphoric acid etching after silane application and saliva contamination.

undefined

Fig. 5.

Shear bond strength data for porcelain after different surface treatment (bar represent standard deviations; n = 18 for each set of data).

undefined

Table I.

Statistical analysis of shear bond strengths and failure mode for porcelain after different surface treatment

Group	N	MPa∗	F - value	P - value^†	Failure Mode
Group	N	MPa∗	F - value	P - value^†	Adhesive failure	Cohesive failure
S1P (control)	18	15.60 ± 2.77	10.32	<.0001	0	18
P1S	18	16.39 ± 3.25			0	18
P2S	18	18.23 ± 2.67			1	17
P3S	18	16.96 ± 3.74			0	18
P4S	18	17.35 ± 4.35			0	18
ES	18	11.03 ± 2.41^a			0	18
P1	18	18.34 ± 3.52			0	18
P2	18	17.89 ± 3.10			0	18
P3	18	17.27 ± 3.13			0	18
P4	18	17.21 ± 3.29			0	18
TES	18	10.12 ± 2.31^a			0	18
TP1	18	13.23 ± 3.56			4	14
TP2	18	14.95 ± 4.39			4	14
TP3	18	15.21 ± 4.92			4	14
TP4	18	13.90 ± 3.13			2	16
TP1S	18	10.90 ± 3.75^a			10	8
TP2S	18	14.92 ± 4.32			5	13
TP3S	18	14.42 ± 3.09			4	14
TP4S	18	13.72 ± 3.64			5	13
TS1P	18	10.89 ± 2.74^a			11	7

^† ANOVA,

^a P < .05 using Dunnett's multiple comparison test comparing with S1P

^∗ mean ± SD

Table II.

The effect of saliva contamination on shear bond strengths of porcelain stored various periods before thermocycling

a)	Group	N	MPa∗	F value	P - value^†
	S1P	18	15.60 ± 2.77	1.52	0.2033
	1S	18	16.39 ± 3.25
	P2S	18	18.23 ± 2.67
	P3S	18	16.96 ± 3.74
	P4S	18	17.35 ± 4.35
b)	Group	N	MPa∗	F value	P - value^†
	S1P	18	15.60 ± 2.77	1.93	0.1122
	P1	18	18.34 ± 3.52^a
	P2	18	17.89 ± 3.10
	P3	18	17.27 ± 3.13
	P4	18	17.21 ± 3.29

a) with saliva contamination.

^† ANOVA, a No treatment is P < .05 using Dunnett's multiple comparisons comparing with S1P,

^∗ mean ± SD

b) without saliva contamination.

^† ANOVA,

^a P < .05 using Dunnett's multiple comparison test comparing with S1P

^∗ mean ± SD.

Table III.

The effect of saliva contamination on shear bond strengths of porcelain stored various periods after thermocycling

a)	Group	N	MPa∗	F value	P - value^†
	TS1P	18	10.89 ± 2.74	5.38	0.0007
	TP1S	18	10.90 ± 3.75
	TP2S	18	14.92 ± 4.32^a
	TP3S	18	14.42 ± 3.09^a
	TP4S	18	13.72 ± 3.64
b)	Group	N	MPa∗	F value	P - value^†
	TS1P	18	10.89 ± 2.74	3.67	0.0083
	TP1	18	13.23 ± 3.56
	TP2	18	14.95 ± 4.39^a
	TP3	18	15.21 ± 4.92^a
	TP4	18	13.90 ± 3.13

a) with saliva contamination.

^† ANOVA,

^a P < .05 using Dunnett's multiple comparison test comparing with TS1P,

^∗ mean ± SD b) without saliva contamination.

^† ANOVA,

^a P < .05 using Dunnett's multiple comparison test comparing with TS1P

^∗ mean ± SD

TOOLS

Similar articles