The influence of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia ceramics

Ji-Hye Jung; Seung-Hyun Jung; Hye-Won Cho; Yu-Lee Kim

doi:10.4047/jkap.2010.48.4.251

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.48(4) > 1034632

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jung, Jung, Cho, and Kim: The influence of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia ceramics

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48(4):251-258.

Published online: 18 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.4.251

The influence of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia ceramics

Ji-Hye Jung, DDS, Seung-Hyun Jung, MSD, DDS, Hye-Won Cho, MSD, DDS, PhD, Yu-Lee Kim, MSD, DDS, PhD^∗

Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Yu-Lee Kim Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Wonkwang University, 344-2 Shinyong-dong, Iksan, 570-749, Korea +82 63 859 2938: e-mail, pro11@wku.ac.kr

Received 19 July 201030 August 2010 Accepted 29 September 2010

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

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of zirconium-oxide ceramic to 4 luting agents.

Materials and methods

A total of 120 disk-shaped zirconium-oxide ceramic blocks (3Y-TZP, Kyoritsu, Japan) were treated as follows: (1) Sandblasting with 110 μ m aluminum-oxide (Al2O3) particles; (2) tribochemical silica coating (Rocatec) using 110 μ m Al2O3 particles modified by silica; (3) no treatment. Then zirconium-oxide ceramic blocks bonded with 4 luting cements (RelyX luting (3M ESPE), Maxcem (Kerr), Nexus3 (Kerr), Rely X Unicem (3M ESPE)). Each group was tested in shear bond strengths by UTM. A 1-way analysis of variance and 2-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the data (α = .05).

Results

RelyX unicem in combination tribochemical silica-coating produced a highest bond strength (P < .05). Air abrasion group and Rocatec treatment groups resulted in significantly higher than no conditioning group (P < .05). RelyX Luting groups showed lower bond strength than other groups. There were significant differences among groups (P < .05).

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, RelyX Unicem cement provided the highest bond strength and Rocatec treatment enhanced the bond strength. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:251-8)

Go to :

Keywords: Surface conditioning, Zirconia, Resin cement, Shear bond strength

REFERENCES

1.Ozcan M., Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003. 19:725–31.

2.Phark JH., Duarte S Jr., Blatz M., Sadan A. An in vitro evaluation of the long-term resin bond to a new densely sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic surface. J Prosthet Dent. 2009. 101:29–38.

3.Palacios RP., Johnson GH., Phillips KM., Raigrodski AJ. Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent. 2006. 96:104–14.

4.Ozcan M., Nijhuis H., Valandro LF. Effect of various surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional monomer to zirconia after thermal aging. Dent Mater J. 2008. 27:99–104.

5.Manicone PF., Rossi Iommetti P., Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent. 2007. 35:819–26.

6.Aboushelib MN., Matinlinna JP., Salameh Z., Ounsi H. Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials: Part I. Dent Mater. 2008. 24:1268–72.

7.Lu ¨thy H., Loeffel O., Hammerle CH. Effect of thermocycling on bond strength of luting cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 2006. 22:195–200.

8.Chaiyabutr Y., McGowan S., Phillips KM., Kois JC., Giordano RA. The effect of hydrofluoric acid surface treatment and bond strength of a zirconia veneering ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2008. 100:194–202.

9.Bindl A., Lu ¨thy H., Mo ¨rmann WH. Thin-wall ceramic CAD/CAM crown copings: strength and fracture pattern. J Oral Rehabil. 2006. 33:520–8.

10.Ernst CP., Cohnen U., Stender E., Willershausen B. In vitro retentive strength of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns using different luting agents. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 93:551–8.

11.Blatz MB., Chiche G., Holst S., Sadan A. Influence of surface treatment and simulated aging on bond strengths of luting agents to zirconia. Quintessence Int. 2007. 38:745–53.

12.Derand T., Molin M., Kvam K. Bond strength of composite luting cement to zirconia ceramic surfaces. Dent Mater. 2005. 21:1158–62.

13.Spohr AM., Borges GA., Ju′nior LH., Mota EG., Oshima HM. Surface modification of In-Ceram Zirconia ceramic by Nd: YAG laser, Rocatec system, or aluminum oxide sandblasting and its bond strength to a resin cement. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008. 26:203–8.

14.Kern M., Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability. Dent Mater. 1998. 14:64–71.

15.De′rand P., De′rand T. Bond strength of luting cements to zirconium oxide ceramics. Int J Prosthodont. 2000. 13:131–5.

16.de Oyagu ¨e RC., Monticelli F., Toledano M., Osorio E., Ferrari M., Osorio R. Influence of surface treatments and resin cement selection on bonding to densely-sintered zirconium-oxide ceramic. Dent Mater. 2009. 25:172–9.

17.Kumbuloglu O., Lassila LV., User A., Vallittu PK. Bonding of resin composite luting cements to zirconium oxide by two air-particle abrasion methods. Oper Dent. 2006. 31:248–55.

18.Blatz MB., Phark JH., Ozer F., Mante FK., Saleh N., Bergler M., Sadan A. In vitro comparative bond strength of contemporary self-adhesive resin cements to zirconium oxide ceramic with and without air-particle abrasion. Clin Oral Investig. 2010. 14:187–92.

19.Kosmac T., Oblak C., Jevnikar P., Funduk N., Marion L. The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 1999. 15:426–33.

20.Willer J., Rossbach A., Weber HP. Computer-assisted milling of dental restorations using a new CAD/CAM data acquisition system. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:346–53.

21.Wolfart M., Lehmann F., Wolfart S., Kern M. Durability of the resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic after using different surface conditioning methods. Dent Mater. 2007. 23:45–50.

22.Blatz MB., Sadan A., Martin J., Lang B. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths of resin to densely-sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic after long-term storage and thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 91:356–62.

23.Janda R., Roulet JF., Wulf M., Tiller HJ. A new adhesive technology for all-ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003. 19:567–73.

24.Blixt M., Adamczak E., Linde′n LA., Ode′n A., Arvidson K. Bonding to densely sintered alumina surfaces: effect of sandblasting and silica coating on shear bond strength of luting cements. Int J Prosthodont. 2000. 13:221–6.

25.Radovic I., Monticelli F., Goracci C., Vulicevic ZR., Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2008. 10:251–8.

26.Senyilmaz DP., Palin WM., Shortall AC., Burke FJ. The effect of surface preparation and luting agent on bond strength to a zirconium-based ceramic. Oper Dent. 2007. 32:623–30.

Go to :

Fig. 1.

Disk-shaped zirconia specimen.

undefined

Fig. 2.

Bonding resin cements to zirconia specimen.

undefined

Fig. 3.

Completed specimen.

undefined

Fig. 4.

Schematic diagram of shear bond strength testing.

undefined

Fig. 5.

Shear bond testing assembly on UTM.

undefined

Fig. 6.

Shear bond strength of 12 groups.

undefined

Fig. 7.

Failure patterns. A: Adhesive failure, B: Mixed failure, C: Cohesive failure.

undefined

Fig. 8.

SEM pictures of Zirconia ceramic. A: Adhesive failure (magnification ×500), B: Mixed failure (magnification ×100), C: Cohesive failure (magnification ×100).

undefined

Fig. 9.

SEM pictures of Zirconia ceramic (magnification ×1,000). A: Grinding with 50 μ m disk, B: Airborne particle abrasion with 110 μ m alumina, C: Rocatec conditioning.

undefined

Table 1.

12 groups used in this study

Groups	Surface Treatment	Cement
NoLut	No Tx.	RelyX Luting
NoMax		Maxcem
NoNx		Nexus3
NoUni		RelyX Unicem
SaLut	Sandblasting Al2O3, 110 μ m	RelyX Luting
SaMax		Maxcem
SaNx		Nexus3
SaUni		RelyX Unicem
RoLut	Rocatec	RelyX Luting
RoMax		Maxcem
RoNx		Nexus3
RoUni		RelyX Unicem

Table 2.

Characteri stics of resin cement used in this study

System	Type	Manufacturer-purported Composition	manufacturer
RelyX Luting	powder/liquid	powder: radiopaque, fluoroalum-inosilicate glass, microencapsulated potassium persulfate,ascorbic acid catalyst, opacifying agent liquid: polycarboxylic acid, methacrylate groups, HEMA, tartaric acid	3M ESPE, Seefeld Germany
Maxcem	Base/catalyst	uncured methacrylate ester monomers, mineral fillers, ytterbium fluoride, activators, stabilizers, colorants	Kerr, Orange, USA
Nexus3	Base/catalyst	uncured methacrylate ester monomers, mineral fillers, activators, stabilizers, radiopaque agent	Kerr, Orange, USA
RelyX Unicem	Base/catalyst	methacrylated phosphoric ester, dimethacrylate, inorganic fillers, fumed silica, chemical and photoinitiators	3M ESPE, Seefeld Germany

Table 3.

Shear bond strength of cements by surface treatment (MPa)

Groups	Mean	Std.Deviation	Turkey test
NoLut	0.00	0.00	e
NoMax	0.18	0.13	e
NoNx	3.28	0.56	d
NoUni	3.45	0.60	d
SaLut	0.38	0.53	e
SaMax	4.49	1.34	d
SaNx	6.39	1.52	c
SaUni	8.74	1.04	b
RoLut	0.03	0.07	e
RoMax	4.35	1.22	d
RoNx	9.06	1.18	b
RoUni	12.54	1.66	a

Table 4.

Results of two-way ANOVA

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig
Model	4185.000	12	348.750	353.859	.000
Surface treatment	475.664	2	237.832	241.316	.000
Cement type	1148.800	3	382.933	388.544	.000
Surface treatment ∗Cement type	229.803	6	38.301	38.862	.000
Error	106.441	108	0.986
Total	4291.44	120

^∗ P < .05

Table 5.

Failure patterns

Groups	Adhesive failure	Mixed failure	Cohesive failure
NoLut	100%	0%	0%
NoMax	100%	0%	0%
NoNx	100%	0%	0%
NoUni	100%	0%	0%
SaLut	100%	0%	0%
SaMax	100%	0%	0%
SaNx	80%	20%	0%
SaUni	80%	20%	0%
RoLut	100%	0%	0%
RoMax	100%	0%	0%
RoNx	80%	20%	0%
RoUni	60%	30%	10%

TOOLS

Similar articles