In Vitro Investigation of the Effect of Different Surface Pretreatments, Materials, and Bonding Systems on Shear Strength in the Repair of Restorations

Abstract

Aim The purpose of our study is to investigate the adhesive strength of commonly used ceramics in clinics with different surface treatments and using dental materials for repairs Material and method Our study was conducted on 16 experimental groups, each comprising 7 test specimens. The experimental group specimens consisted of restoration material, adhesive system, and repair material, resembling a restoration repair application. The Vita VMK 95 slated for repair was utilized. Surface pretreatment included roughening with a bur, application of hydrofluoric acid, and silanization process. As for the repair material, composite, flowable composite, compomer, and flowable compomer were employed. To facilitate the bonding of the repair material to the restoration material, or total-etch and self-etch systems were applied. Following the completion of restoration and repair procedures, the test specimens were affixed to a Shimadzu Autograph AG-X (Shimadzu Corp., Japan) universal testing machine to measure their shear bond strengths. The evaluation of measurement results related to Kruskal-Wallis test for inter-group comparisons and Dunn's multiple comparison test for subgroup comparisons. The results were assessed at a significance level of P < 0.05, with a confidence interval of 95%. Results TAll groups prepared with hydrofluoric acid and silanization (14,996±2,756) exhibited higher shear bond strength compared to all groups prepared with bur roughening (8,378±0,795). Conclusion In the repair of ceramic restorations, the application of hydrofluoric acid and silan to the surface should be preferred over surface roughening with a bur in terms of shear bond strength.

Keywords

• Ceramic repair
• Hydrofluoric acid
• Shear bond strengths
• Silanization
• Surface pretreatments

References

1. Yüce ŞM., Türk AG. Bilgisayar destekli tasarım bilgisayar destekli üretim ve presleme sistemleriyle üretilen porselen laminat venerlerin kenar ve internal uyumlarının karşılaştırılması:in-vitro çalışma, Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 2017, 27:19-26
2. Shillingburg, H.T., Hobo, S. ve Whitsett, L.D. (1981) Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. (2nd ed.). Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.
3. McLean, J.W. (1983). Dental Ceramics Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Ceramics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.
4. Craig, J.F., OBrien, W.J. ve Powers, J.M. (1996). Dental Materials. Properties& Manuplation. (6th ed.). St.Louis, Missouri: Mosby inc.
5. Denehy, G., Bouschlicher, M. ve Vargas, M. (1998). Intraoral repair of cosmetic restorations. Dental Clinics of North America, 42, 719-737.
6. Latta, M.A. ve Barmeier, W.W. (2000). Approaches for intra oral repair of ceramic restorations. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, 21, 635-643.
7. Knight, J.S., Holmes, J.R., Bradford, H. ve Lawson, C. (2003). Shear bond strengths of composite bonded to porcelain using porcelain repair systems. American Journal of Dentistry, 16, 252-256.
8. Kamada, K., Yoshida, K. ve Atsuta, M. (1998). Effect of ceramic surface treatments on the bond of four resin luting agents to a ceramic material. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 79, 508–513.

9. Llobell, A., Nicholls, J.I., Kois, J.C. ve Daly, C.H. (1992). Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 5, 205–213.
10. Margeas, R.C. (2002). Salvaging a porcelain- fused to metal bridge with intraoral ceramic repair. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, 23, 952-956.
11. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode' adhesive to enamel and dentine. Journal of Dentistry, 2012, 40: 475-484.
12. Roulet, J.F. ve Degrange, M. (2001). Adhesion the Silent Revolution in Dentistry. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing Co.
13. Haselton, D.R., Diaz-Arnold A.M. ve Dunne, J.T.Jr. (2001). Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 86, 526-531.
14. Phoenix, R.D. ve Shen, C. (1995) Characterization of treated porcelain surfaces via dynamic contact angle analysis. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 8, 187–194.
15. Latta, M.A. ve Barmeier, W.W. (2000). Approaches for intra oral repair of ceramic restorations. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, 21, 635-643.
16. Johnston, W.M. ve OBrien, W.J. (1980). Shear strength of dental porcelain. Journal of Dental Reasearch, 59, 1409-1411.
17. Oğuz Eİ, Çiçekçi G., Influence of different repair protocols and artificial aging on bond strength of composite to a CAD/CAM polymer-infiltrated ceramic. J Adv Prostodont 2020;12:22-32.
18. Schwenter J, Schmidli F, Weiger R, Fischer J. Adhesive bonding to polymer infiltrated ceramic. Dent Mater J 2016; 35:796- 802.
19. Sarıyer S.,Subaşı M.G.,’’ Surface treatment, liquid, and aging effects on color and surface properties of monolithic ceramics‘’2024 Jun; 16(3): 174–188.Published online 2024 Jun 25.
20. Noda y.,Nakajıma M.,Takahashı M.,Mamanee T.,Hosaka K.,Takagakı T.,Ikeda M.,Foxton R.M.,Tagamı J.,’’The effect of five kinds of surface treatment agents on the bond strength to various ceramics with thermocycle aging’’ J-STAGE/Dental Materials Journal/ 36 (2017) 6