Shear Bond Strength of Composite Resin Cements to Ceramics

Abstract

The study aimed to evaluate the comparison of the shear bond
strength of IPS Empress II and recent IPS e.max ceramics luted
with eight different luting resins tested with three adhesion types:
total etch, self-etch or self-adhesion. Two cylindrical shaped (7.2
mm×4.1 mm) ceramic specimens (IPS Empress II®, IPS e.max®)
were used for each test group yielding a total number of 160
specimens. The specimens in each group which were randomly
divided into 8 groups (n:10) were luted with eigth different resin
composite luting cements (Variolink with Heliobond adhesive
system, Bifix QM with Solobond Plus adhesive system, Choice
with One Step Plus adhesive system, Multilink with Primer A+B
adhesive system, Bifix QM with Futurabond DC adhesive system,
experimental self adhesive luting resin, G-cem self adhesive luting
resin, BisCem self adhesive luting resin). In all specimens, HF (5%)
and silane were applied. All specimens were stored in water for 24
h and then subjected to 10000 cycles of thermocycling (5 Cº and
55 Cº). Bond strength was measured by means of a shear test,
using Zwick Z010® universal testing machine with 0.5 mm/min
speed until failure. To determine the statistical significance of the
differences between the mean shear bond strength values, Kruskal-
Wallis, Dunn’s multiple comparisons test and Mann-Whitney U
tests were used. Shear bond strength of luting resins using totaletch
system showed better mean values than the resin cements
using self etch and self adhesive systems (total etch 22.40 ±9.95;
self-etch 16.76±7.78; self-adhesive 8.05±3.04 for IPS Empress II)
(total etch 20.44±5.48; self-etch 17.59±5.18; self-adhesive 8.41±3.27
for IPS e.max). The shear bond strength values of self adhesive
system were significantly lower (P<0.05) than the other systems.
No significant differences were observed between IPS Empress and
IPS e.max ceramics according to shear bond strength. Adhesive
failure was the most prevalent type of failure for both IPS Empress®
and IPS e.max®.
IPS Empress II® ceramics gave promising results, using with totaletch
adhesive systems under the conditions of this in vitro study.

Keywords

• IPS Empress II®, IPS e.max®, shear bond strength, luting resin, total ecth, self etch, self adhesive.

References

1. Koji F, Norimichi I, Junji T. The effects of luting resin bond to dentin on the strength of dentinsupported by indirect resin composite. Dent Mater 2002; 18:136-142.
2. O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed. Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., Chicago, 2002.
3. Anusavice KJ. Phillip’s science of dental material. 10th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1996.
4. Burke FJ. The effect of variations in bonding prosedure on fracture resistance of dentin-bonded all-ceramic crowns. Quintessence Int 1995; 26:293-300.
5. Roland Frankenberger, Ulrich Lohbauer, Rainer B. Schaible, Sergej A. Nikolaenko, Michael Naumann. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: Marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and- rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Dent mater 2008; 24:185–191.
6. Tagtekin DA, Ozyoney G, Yanikoglu FC. Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays. Oper Dent 2009; 34(4):369–378.
7. Özyoney G, Yanıkoğlu Funda, Tağtekin Dilek, Hayran Osman. The Efficacy of Glass Ceramic Onlays in the Restoration of Endodontically Treated, Morphologically Compromised Molars: A Preliminary 4-Year Report. IJP (In Press, 2013)
8. Toksavul S, Toman M. A short-term clinical evaluation of IPS Empress 2 crowns. Inter J Prosthodont 2007; 20:168-172.

9. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28:215–235.
10. Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van LK, Maida T, Lambrechts P, Peumans M. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentine. Dent Mater 2007; 23:71-80.
11. Watanabe LG, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. Variables influence of shear bond strength testing to dentin. In: Tagami J, Toledano M, Prati C, editors. Advanced adhesive dentistry, 3rdinternational Kuraray Symposium. Kuraray Co. Ltd, Cirimido, Italy; 1999; 75-90.
12. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental materials restorations. J Dent; 1999; 27:89-99.
13. Nikaido T, Kunzelman KH, Chen H, Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Cox CF, Hickel R, Tagami J. Evaluation of thermal cycling and mechanical and loading on loading on bond strenght of a self-etching primer system to dentin. Dent Mater 2002; 18(3):269-275.
14. Moll K, Fritzenschaft A, Haller B. In vitro comparison of dentin bonding systems: effect of testing method and operator. Quintessence Int 2004; 35(10):845-852.
15. Oilo G. Bond strength testing-what does it mean? Int Dent J 1993; 43:492-498.
16. Pameijer CH, Jefferies SR. Retentive properties and film thickness of 18 luting agent and systems. Oper Dent 1996; Nov-Dec:524-530.
17. Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of different etching periods on the bond strength of a composite resin to a machinable porcelain. J Dent 1998; 26:53-58.
18. Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of etchant, etching period and silane priming on bond strength to porcelain of composite resin. Oper Dent 1998; 23:250-257.
19. Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 2000; 13:60-76.
20. Matsumura H, Kato H, Atsuta M. Shear bond strength to feldspathic porcelain of two luting cements in combination with three surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:511- 517.
21. Toman M, Toksavul S, Akın A. Bond strength of all-ceramics to tooth structure: using new luting systems. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10(5):373-378.
22. Manso AG, Gonzalez-Lopez S, Bolanos-Carmona V, Mauricio PJ, Felix SA, Carvalho PA. Regional bond srtength to lateral walls in class I and II ceramic inlays luted with four resin cements and glass-ionomer luting agent. J Adhes Dent 2011;13(5):455-465.
23. Audenino G, Bresciano ME, Bassi F, Carossa S. In vitro evaluation of fit of adhesively luted ceramic inlays. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12:342-347.
24. Krejici L, Lutz F, Reimer M. Marginal adaptation and fit of adhesive ceramic inlays. J Dent 1993; 21:39-46.
25. Sorensen JA, Munksgaard EC. Relative gap formation adjacent to ceramic inlays with combinations of resin cements and dentin bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76:472-478.
26. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84(2):118-132.
27. Al-Ehaideb A, Mohammed H. Shear bond strength of ‘one bottle’ dentin adhesives. J Proshet Dent 2000; 84(4):408-412.
28. Yin M, Luo XP, Yao H, Liu X. Comparison of shear bond strength to diffrent resin cements to ceramic and dentin. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2009;44:113-116.
29. Zhang C, Degrange M. Shear bond strength of self-adhesive luting resins fixing dentine to diffrent restorative materials. J Biometer Sci Polym 2010; 21:593-608.