Adhesion of Resin-Resin and Resin–Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Methodological Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Specimen Preparation
2.2. Bonding
2.3. Adhesion Tests and Failure-Type Analysis
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The resin composite to resin composite adhesion showed significantly higher values with µTBT. SBT values were significantly higher than that of TBT but not significantly different from µSBT.
- The resin composite adhesion to lithium disilicate glass ceramic was significantly higher with µTBT and SBT, and the lowest with TBT and µSBT.
- Only with SBT and µTBT, a significant difference could be observed for bond values between resin–resin and resin–ceramic combinations.
- Using µTBT, Weibull distribution indicated more reliable adhesion of resin composite to resin composite and ceramic.
- Except for µTBT, cohesive failure in the substrate was more frequent in resin–resin combinations, compared to resin–ceramic combinations. Similarly, except for µSBT, adhesive failure was more frequent in resin–resin combinations, compared to resin–ceramic combinations.
- Mixed failures occurred mostly in resin–ceramic adhesion with SBT (100%), TBT (90%), and µSBT (90%) test types.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Breschi, L.; Mazzoni, A.; Ruggeri, A.; Cadenaro, M.; di Lenarda, R.; de Stefano Dorifo, E. Dental adhesion review: Aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peumans, M.; Kanumilli, P.; de Munck, J.; van Landuyt, K.; Lambrechts, P.; van Meerbeek, B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent. Mater. 2005, 21, 864–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, M.V.; de Almeida Neves, A.; Mine, A.; Coutinho, E.; van Landuyt, K.; de Munck, J.; van Meerbeek, B. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust. Dent. 2011, 56, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ozcan, M.; Vallittu, P.K. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent. Mater. 2003, 19, 725–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heintze, S.D.; Rousson, V.; Mahn, E. Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results—A meta-analysis. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, S.; Breschi, L.; Özcan, M.; Pfefferkorn, F.; Ferrarim, M.; van Meerbeek, B. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent. Mater. 2016, 33, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kern, M. Bonding to oxide ceramics—laboratory testing versus clinical outcome. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scherrer, S.S.; Cesar, P.F.; Swain, M.V. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: A critical literature review. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, T.; Tsoi, J.K.H.; Matinlinna, J.P.; Burrow, M.F. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeHoff, P.H.; Anusavice, K.J.; Wang, Z. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent. Mater. 1995, 11, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Bona, A.; van Noort, R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J. Dent. Res. 1995, 74, 1591–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moharamzadeh, K.; Hooshmand, T.; Keshvad, A.; van Noort, R. Fracture toughness of a ceramic-resin interface. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Della Bona, A.; Anusavice, K.J.; Shen, C. Microtensile strength of composite bonded to hot-pressed ceramics. J. Adhes. Dent. 2000, 2, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Pisani-Proenca, J.; Erhardt, M.C.G.; Valandro, L.F.; Gutierrez-Aceves, G.; Bolanos-Carmona, M.V.; del Castillo-Salmeron, R.; Bottino, M.A. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2006, 96, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracis, S.; Thompson, V.P.; Ferencz, J.L.; Silva, N.R.; Bonfante, E.A. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2015, 28, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dunne, S.M.; Millar, B.J. A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Br. Dent. J. 1993, 175, 317–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fradeani, M.; Redemagni, M. An 11-year clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns: A retrospective study. Quintessence Int. 2002, 33, 503–510. [Google Scholar]
- Kohal, R.J.; Att, W.; Bächle, M.; Butz, F. Ceramic abutments and ceramic oral implants. An update. Periodontology 2008, 47, 224–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addison, O.; Marquis, P.M.; Fleming, G.J.P. Quantifying the strength of a resin-coated dental ceramic. J. Dent. Res. 2008, 87, 542–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Mowafy, O. The use of resin cements in restorative dentistry to overcome retention problems. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2001, 67, 97–102. [Google Scholar]
- Valandro, L.F.; Ozcan, M.; Amaral, R.; Vanderlei, A.; Bottino, M.A. Effect of testing methods on the bond strength of resin to zirconia-alumina ceramic: Microtensile versus shear test. Dent. Mater. J. 2008, 27, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Albakry, M.; Guazzato, M.; Swain, M.V. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J. Dent. 2004, 32, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filho, A.M.; Vieira, L.C.C.; Araújo, E.; Monteiro Junior, S. Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 13, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matinlinna, J.P.; Lassila, L.V.J.; Özcan, M.; Yli-Urpo, A.; Vallittu, P.K. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 17, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Piwowarczyk, A.; Lauer, H.C.; Sorensen, J.A. In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 92, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dentistry—Testing of Adhesion to Tooth Structure; ICS:11.060.10; ICS: Zumikon, Switzerland, 2015.
- Placido, E.; Meira, J.B.; Lima, R.G.; Muench, A.; de Souza, R.M.; Ballester, R.Y. Shear versus Micro-Shear Bond Strength Test: A Finite Element Stress Analysis. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 1086–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Say, E.C.; Nakajima, M.; Senawongse, P.; Soyman, M.; Ozer, F.; Tagami, J. Bonding to Sound vs Caries-Affected Dentin Using Photo- and Dual-Cure Adhesives. Oper. Dent. 2005, 30, 90–98. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Chai, Z.G.; Wang, H.; Wang, Y.J.; Chen, J.H. Influence of Different Adherend Materials and Combinations on in Vitro Shear Bond Strength. Dent. Mater. J. 2013, 32, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Munck, J.; Mine, A.; Poitevin, A.; van Ende, A.; Cardoso, M.V.; van Landuyt, K.L.; Peumans, M.; van Meerbeek, B. Meta-Analytical Review of Parameters Involved in Dentin Bonding. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Noort, R.; Cardew, G.E.; Howard, I.C.; Noroozi, S. The Effect of Local Interfacial Geometry on the Measurement of the Tensile Bond Strength to Dentin. J. Dent. Res. 1991, 70, 889–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghassemieh, E. Evaluation of Sources of Uncertainties in Microtensile Bond Strength of Dental Adhesive System for Different Specimen Geometries. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 536–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poitevin, A.; Munck, J.; van Landuyt, K.; Coutinho, E.; Peumans, M.; Lambrechts, P.; van Meerbeek, B. Critical Analysis of the Influence of Different Parameters on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Adhesives to Dentin. J. Adhes. Dent. 2008, 10, 7–16. [Google Scholar]
- Neves Ade, A.; Coutinho, E.; Poitevin, A.; van der Solten, J.; van Meerbeek, B.; van Oosterwyck, H. Influence of Joint Component Mechanical Properties and Adhesive Layer Thickness on Stress Distribution in Micro-Tensile Bond Strength Specimens. Dent. Mater. 2009, 25, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kelly, J.R.; Tesk, J.A.; Sorensen, J.A. Failure of All-Ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures in Vitro and in Vivo: Analysis and Modeling. J. Dent. Res. 1995, 74, 1253–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costa, A.; Xavier, T.; Noritomi, P.; Saavedra, G.; Borges, A. The Influence of Elastic Modulus of Inlay Materials on Stress Distribution and Fracture of Premolars. Oper. Dent. 2014, 39, E160–E170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Della Bona, A.; Shen, C.; Anusavice, K. Work of Adhesion of Resin on Treated Lithia Disilicate-Based Ceramic. Dent. Mater. 2004, 20, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges, G.A.; Sophr, A.M.; de Goes, M.F.; Sobrinho, L.C.; Chan, D.C. Effect of Etching and Airborne Particle Abrasion on the Microstructure of Different Dental Ceramics. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003, 89, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvio, L.A.; Correr-Sobrinho, L.; Consani, S.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; de Goes, M.F.; Knowles, J.C. Effect of Water Storage and Surface Treatments on the Tensile Bond Strength of IPS Empress 2 Ceramic. J. Prosthodont. 2007, 16, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guarda, G.B.; Correr, A.B.; Gonçalves, L.S.; Costa, A.R.; Borges, G.A.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Correr-Sobrinho, L. Effects of Surface Treatments, Thermocycling, and Cyclic Loading on the Bond Strength of a Resin Cement Bonded to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic. Oper. Dent. 2013, 38, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, S.A., Jr.; Ferracane, J.L.; Della Bona, A. Influence of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of Repaired Resin Composite Restorative Materials. Dent. Mater. 2009, 25, 442–451. [Google Scholar]
- Rinastiti, M.; Özcan, M.; Siswomihardjo, W.; Busscher, H.J. Immediate Repair Bond Strengths of Microhybrid, Nanohybrid and Nanofilled Composites after Different Surface Treatments. J. Dent. 2010, 38, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zarone, F.; Di Mauro, M.I.; Ausiello, P.; Ruggiero, G.; Sorrentino, R. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: A narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2019, 19, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Martorelli, M.; Ausiello, P. A novel approach for a complete 3D tooth reconstruction using only 3D crown data. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2013, 7, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ausiello, P.; Ciaramella, S.; Garcia-Godoy, F.; Martorelli, M.; Sorrentino, R.; Gloria, A. Stress distribution of bulk-fill resin composite in class II restorations. Am. J. Dent. 2017, 30, 227–232. [Google Scholar]
Product Name | Manufacturer | Chemical Composition |
---|---|---|
IPS e.max CAD | Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Lichtenstein | >57% SiO2, Li2O, K2O, P2O5, ZrO2, ZnO, Al2O3, MgO, pigments |
IPS ceramic etching gel | Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Lichtenstein | 5% hydrofluoric acid, water |
Monobond Plus | Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Lichtenstein | Silane methacrylate, phosphoric acid methacrylate, sulphide methacrylate, ethanol |
Heliobond | Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Lichtenstein | bis-GMA (50–100), Triethylenglycoldimethacrylate (25–50%) |
Qadrant Universal LC | Cavex, Haarlem, The Netherlands | Feldspar 20–25%; Bisphenol A Diglycidyl Methacrylate (bis-GMA) 10–20%, Silica (0.1–2.5%) |
Weibull Modulus (m) (95% CI) | Failure Type Distribution n (%) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | Substrate | Test Method | Produced/Pre-Test Failures/Final Analyzed Specimens | Bond Strength (Mean ± SD) | Min-Max (95% CI) | Shape | Scale | CI Shape | Score 1 (1+8) | Score 2 (2a–c) | Score 3 (3,4a–c,5) | Score 4 (6a–c) | Score 5 (7) |
1 | Comp–Comp | SBT | 30/0/30 | 24.4 ± 5.0 a | 14.2–34.7 (22.5–26.3) | 5.50 | 26.4 | (4.19–7.21) | 26 (86.7%) | 4 (13.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
2 | Comp–Comp | TBT | 30/0/30 | 16.1 ± 4.4 b | 8.6–27.1 (14.4–17.7) | 4.07 | 17.7 | (3.10–5.34) | 15 (50%) | 9 (30.0%) | 6 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
3 | Comp–Comp | µSBT | 30/0/30 | 20.6 ± 7.4 a,b | 11.4–36.0 (17.9–23.4) | 3.07 | 23.12 | (2.33–4.03) | 15 (50%) | 12 (36.6%) | 0 (0) | 2 (6.6%) | 1 (3.3%) |
4 | Comp–Comp | µTBT | 216/0/216 | 36.7 ± 8.9 c | 21.0–47.8 (27.4–46.0) | 5.68 | 39.78 | (2.96–10.93) | 65 (30.1) | 8 (3.7%) | 9 (4.1%) | 16 (7.4%) | 118 (54.6%) |
5 | Ceramic–Comp | SBT | 30/0/30 | 14.6 ± 4.8 A,D | 6.9–21.4 (12.8–16.4) | 3.51 | 16.3 | (2.62–4.69) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 30 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
6 | Ceramic–Comp | TBT | 30/0/30 | 19.9 ± 5.3 A,B | 11.1–30.0 (17.9–21.8) | 4.24 | 21.88 | (3.21–5.61) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 27 (90%) | 3 (10%) |
7 | Ceramic–Comp | µSBT | 30/0/30 | 6.6 ± 0.9 B | 12.3–40.9 (22.1–27.6) | 3.75 | 27.51 | (2.86–4.94) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (10%) | 27 (90%) | 0 (0%) |
8 | Ceramic–Comp | µTBT | 216/0/216 | 24.8 ± 7.4 C,D | 5.6–8.2 (5.6–7.5) | 7.64 | 6.95 | (4.30–13.6) | 133 (61.6) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.5%) | 77 (35.7%) | 4 (1.9%) |
Failure Type Distribution n (%) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | Substrate | Score 1 (1) | Score 2 (2a) | Score 3 (2b) | Score 4 (2c) | Score 5 (3) | Score 6 (4a) | Score 7 (4b) | Score 8 (4c) | Score 9 (5) | Score 10 (6a) | Score 11 (6b) | Score 12 (6c) | Score 13 (7) | Score 14 (8) |
1 | Comp-Comp | 26 (86.7%) | 4 (13.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
2 | Comp-Comp | 12 (40.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (30.0%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (20.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (10.0%) |
3 | Comp-Comp | 13 (43.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (33.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 2 (6.67%) |
4 | Comp-Comp | 61 (28.2%) | 7 (3.2%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (4.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (2.8%) | 3 (1.4%) | 7 (3.2%) | 118 (54.6%) | 4 (1.9%) |
5 | Ceramic-Comp | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 30 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
6 | Ceramic-Comp | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 26 (86.7%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) |
7 | Ceramic-Comp | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 18 (60%) | 3 (10%) | 6 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
8 | Ceramic-Comp | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 76 (35.2%) | 4 (1.9%) | 133 (61.6%) |
Comp-Comp | SBT | TBT |
---|---|---|
SBT | - | 0.000 |
TBT | 0.000 | - |
µSBT | 0.515 | 0.269 |
µTBT | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Ceramic–Comp | SBT | TBT |
---|---|---|
SBT | - | 0.111 |
TBT | 0.111 | - |
µSBT | 0.000 | 0.156 |
µTBT | 0.227 | 0.001 |
Comp–Comp vs. Ceramic–Comp | SBT | TBT | µSBT | µTBT |
---|---|---|---|---|
SBT | 0.000 | 0.266 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
TBT | 0.996 | 0.518 | 0.000 | 0.074 |
µSBT | 0.035 | 1.000 | 0.354 | 0.000 |
µTBT | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guggenbühl, S.; Alshihri, A.; Al-Haj Husain, N.; Özcan, M. Adhesion of Resin-Resin and Resin–Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Methodological Assessment. Materials 2021, 14, 3870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143870
Guggenbühl S, Alshihri A, Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M. Adhesion of Resin-Resin and Resin–Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Methodological Assessment. Materials. 2021; 14(14):3870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143870
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuggenbühl, Simon, Abdulmonem Alshihri, Nadin Al-Haj Husain, and Mutlu Özcan. 2021. "Adhesion of Resin-Resin and Resin–Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Methodological Assessment" Materials 14, no. 14: 3870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143870