Evaluation of shear-bond strength between different self-adhesive resin cements with phosphate monomer and zirconia ceramic before and after thermocycling

Ji-Hun Lee; Min-Kyung Kim; Jung-Jin Lee; Seung-Geun Ahn; Ju-Mi Park; Jae-Min Seo

doi:10.4047/jkap.2015.53.4.318

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.53(4) > 1034840

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Kim, Lee, Ahn, Park, and Seo: Evaluation of shear-bond strength between different self-adhesive resin cements with phosphate monomer and zirconia ceramic before and after thermocycling

Original Article

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2015;53(4):318-324.

Published online: 9 February 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2015.53.4.318

Evaluation of shear-bond strength between different self-adhesive resin cements with phosphate monomer and zirconia ceramic before and after thermocycling

Ji-Hun Lee, Min-Kyung Kim, Jung-Jin Lee, Seung-Geun Ahn, Ju-Mi Park, Jae-Min Seo^∗

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry and Institute of Oral Bio-Science, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

^∗Corresponding Author: Jae-Min Seo Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry and Institute of Oral Bio-Science, Chonbuk National University, 20, Geonji-ro, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju, Jeonbuk 54907, Repulic of Korea +82 63 250 2696: e-mail, jmseo@jbnu.ac.kr

Received 17 July 201519 August 2015 Accepted 19 August 2015

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

This study compared shear bond strengths of five self-adhesive cements with phosphate monomer to zirconium oxide ceramic with and without airborn particle abrasion.

Materials and methods

One hundred zirconia samples were air-abraded (50 ㎛ Al2O₃). One hundred composite resin cylinders were fabricated. Composite cylinders were bonded to the zirconia samples with either Permacem 2.0 (P), Clearfil^TM SA Luting (C), Multilink^® Speed (M), RelyX^TM U200 Automix (R), G-Cem LinkAce^TM (G). All bonded specimens were stored in distilled water (37°C) for 24 h and half of them were additionally aged by thermocycling (5°C, 55°C, 5,000 times). The bonded specimens were loaded in shear force until fracture (1 mm/min) by using Universal Testing Machine (Model 4201, Instron Co, Canton, MA, USA). The failure sites were inspected under field-emission scanning electron microscopy. The data was analyzed with ANOVA, Tukey HSD post-hoc test and paired samples t-test (α =.05).

Results

Before and after thermocycling, Multilink^® Speed (M) revealed higher shear-bond strength than the other cements. G-Cem LinkAce ^TM (G) showed significantly lower bond strengths after thermocycling than before treatment (P<.05), but the other groups were not significantly different (P>.05).

Conclusion

Most self-adhesive cements with phosphate monomer showed high shear bond strength with zirconia ceramic and weren't influenced by thermocycling, so they seem to valuable to zirconia ceramic bonding.

Go to :

Keywords: Self-adhesive resin cements, Phosphate monomer, Zirconia ceramic, Shear bond strength, Thermocycling

REFERENCES

1. Anusavice KJ. Recent developments in restorative dental ceramics. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993; 124:72–4. 76-8. 80–4.

2. Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry: his-torical roots and current perspectives. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75:18–32.

3. Lin J, Shinya A, Gomi H, Shinya A. Effect of self-adhesive resin cement and tribochemical treatment on bond strength to zirconia. Int J Oral Sci. 2010; 2:28–34.

4. Luthardt RG, Sandkuhl O, Reitz B. Zirconia-TZP and alumina–advanced technologies for the manufacturing of single crowns. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1999; 7:113–9.

5. Passos SP, May LG, Barca DC, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Adhesive quality of self-adhesive and conventional adhesive resin cement to Y-TZP ceramic before and after aging conditions. Oper Dent. 2010; 35:689–96.

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

7. Anusavice KJ. Phillips science of dental materials. 11th ed.Saunders: Missouri, USA;2003. p. 443–94.

8. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Hughie ML, Brown JS. Comparison of shear bond strengths of two resin luting systems for a base and a high noble metal alloy bonded to enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72:457–61.

9. In HS, Park JI, Choi JI, Cho HW, Dong JK. The study of shear bond strength of a self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008; 46:535–43.

10. Miragaya L, Maia LC, Sabrosa CE, de Goes MF, da Silva EM. Evaluation of self-adhesive resin cement bond strength to yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic (Y-TZP) using four surface treatments. J Adhes Dent. 2011; 13:473–80.

11. Komine F, Kobayashi K, Saito A, Fushiki R, Koizumi H, Matsumura H. Shear bond strength between an indirect composite veneering material and zirconia ceramics after thermocycling. J Oral Sci. 2009; 51:629–34.

12. Ikemura K, Jogetsu Y, Shinno K, Nakatsuka T, Endo T, Kadoma Y. Effects of a newly designed HEMA-free, multi-purpose, single-bottle, self-etching adhesive on bonding to dental hard tis-sues, zirconia-based ceramics, and gold alloy. Dent Mater J. 2011; 30:616–25.

13. Kim AJ, Yu SH, Oh SH, Bae JM. Effect of self-adhesive resin cements on the shear bond strengths between bovine teeth and composite resin block. J Korean Soc Dent Mater. 2013; 40:367–72.

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

15. 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.

16. Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:295–314.

17. Oyagü e RC, Monticelli F, Toledano M, Osorio E, Ferrari M, Osorio R. Effect of water aging on microtensile bond strength of dual-cured resin cements to pre-treated sintered zirconium-oxide ceramics. Dent Mater. 2009; 25:392–9.

18. D'Amario M, Campidoglio M, Morresi AL, Luciani L, Marchetti E, Baldi M. Effect of thermocycling on the bond strength between dual-cured resin cements and zirconium-oxide ceramics. J Oral Sci. 2010; 52:425–30.

19. Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Aguilera FS, Yamauti M, Pashley DH, Tay F. Durability of resin-dentin bonds: effects of direct/indirect exposure and storage media. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:885–92.

20. Fischer J, Grohmann P, Stawarczyk B. Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear strength of zirconia/veneering ceramic composites. Dent Mater J. 2008; 27:448–54.

21. Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 1990; 17:487–94.

22. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent Mater. 1998; 14:51–6.

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

Go to :

Fig. 1.

Zirconia specimen.

undefined

Fig. 2.

Composite resin cylinder.

undefined

Fig. 3.

Mean shear bond strength (∗: Statistically significant with P<.05).

undefined

Fig. 4.

Failure mode before and after thermocycling (-1 : before thermocycling,-2 : after thermocycling).

undefined

Fig. 5.

Scanning electron microscope image of zirconia surface (×5,000 magnification).(A) polished with 1 ㎛ diamond paste, (B) sandblasting with 50 ㎛ Al2 O₃.

undefined

Fig. 6.

Scanning electron microscope image of zirconia surface after shear-bond strength test (×2,000 magnification, -1: before thermocycling, -2: after thermocycling). (A) P: Permacem 2.0, (B) C: Clearfil ^TM SA Luting, (C) M: Multilink^® Speed,(D) R: RelyX ^TM U200, (E) G: G-Cem LinkAce ^TM.

undefined

Table 1.

Self-adhesive resin cements used in this study

Group	Brand name	Composition	Manufacturer
P	Permacem 2.0	Barium glass in a Bis-GMA-based matrix of dental resins, phosphate monomer pigments, additives and catalysts	DMG, Hamburg, Germany
C	Clearfil ^TM SA Luting	Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, 10-MDP, barium glass, silica, sodium fluoride	Kuraray Medical, Tokyo, Japan
M	Multilink^® Speed	Dimethacrylate, ytterbium trifluoride, methacrylate monomer with phosphoric acid group, glass, silicone dioxide	Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein
R	RelyX ^TM U200	Methacrylate monomers containing phosphoric acid groups, methacrylate monomers, silanated fillers, initiator components, stabilizer components, rheologic additives, alkaline fillers, pigments	3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany
G	G-Cem LinkAce ^TM	Fluoro-alumino-silicate glass, Urethanedimethacrylate, Dimethacrylate, phosphoric ester, silicon dioxide, initiator, inhibitor, pigment	GC Coporation, Tokyo, Japan

Table 2.

Mean shear bond strength (MPa) with SD

Group	N	Mean	SD
P-1¹⁾	10	10.21	1.36
P-2²⁾	10	9.70	1.57
C-1	10	10.38	1.29
C-2	10	8.65	2.39
M-1	10	13.61	1.45
M-2	10	12.36	2.40
R-1	10	9.69	1.55
R-2	10	8.21	2.45
G-1	10	12.94	1.64
G-2	10	6.26	2.41

1) -1 : Before thermocycling

2) -2 : After thermocycling

Table 3.

The results of Tukey HSD post hoc test (before thermocycling)

(1) Group	(2) Groups	Mean Difference (1) - (2)	Std. Error	sig.
P	C	-1.78	0.65	1.00
	M	-3.40	0.65	0.00
	R	0.52	0.65	0.93
	G	-2.73	0.65	0.00
C	P	0.18	0.65	1.00
	M	-3.22	0.65	0.00
	R	0.69	0.65	0.83
	G	-2.55	0.65	0.00
M	P	3.40	0.65	0.00
	C	3.22	0.65	0.00
	R	3.92	0.65	0.00
	G	0.67	0.65	0.84
R	P	-0.52	0.65	0.93
	C	-0.69	0.65	0.83
	M	-3.92	0.65	0.00
	G	-3.25	0.65	0.00
G	P	2.73	0.65	0.00
	C	2.55	0.65	0.00
	M	-0.67	0.65	0.84
	R	3.25	0.65	0.00

No significant difference: P>.05

Table 4.

The results of Tukey HSD post hoc test (after thermocycling)

(1) Group	(2) Groups	Mean Difference (1) - (2)	Std. Error	sig.
P	C	1.05	1.01	0.84
	M	-2.66	1.01	0.08
	R	1.49	1.01	0.59
	G	0.36	1.01	0.01
C	P	-1.05	1.01	0.84
	M	-3.71	1.01	0.01
	R	0.44	1.01	0.99
	G	2.39	1.01	0.15
M	P	2.66	1.01	0.08
	C	3.71	1.01	0.01
	R	4.15	1.01	0.00
	G	6.10	1.01	0.00
R	P	-1.49	1.01	0.59
	C	-0.44	1.01	0.99
	M	-4.15	1.01	0.00
	G	1.95	1.01	0.32
G	P	-3.44	1.01	0.01
	C	-2.39	1.01	0.15
	M	-6.10	1.01	0.00
	R	-1.95	1.01	0.32

No significant difference: P>.05

TOOLS

Similar articles