Effect of the composition and manufacturing process on the resin microtensile bond strength to ceramics
Source abstract
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the bond strength between resin cement and different glass-ceramics manufactured in different processing systems using two different microtensile bond strength test (μTBs) assemblies (ceramic-ceramic or ceramic-dentin). For this, ceramic blocks were fabricated with adhesive surface area of 5 × 5 mm to test the different possibilities combining the two different glass-ceramic compositions (feldspathic – FEL and lithium disilicate - LD), the three manufacturing-processes (CAD/CAM, heat-pressed or layered for FEL; CAD/CAM or heat-pressed for LD) and the two μTBS assemblies (ceramic-ceramic or ceramic-dentin). Half of the samples of each ceramic evaluated were made by cementing the ceramic blocks in another ceramic block and the other half by cementing the ceramic blocks in ground molars with exposed dentin, using resin cement (Rely X ARC, 3 M ESPE). The samples were stored for 24 h in distilled water at 37 °C and then sectioned into microbars (±1 mm2, n = 30). These specimens were submitted to the μTBS and the data were analyzed by specific statistical tests (α = 0.05). The fractured surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope and the failure mode was classified. In addition, finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to observe the maximum tensile stress in the resin cement when a μTBS load was applied (10 N) and during the resin cement polymerization shrinkage. The CAD/CAM glass-ceramics have better bond strength than the other evaluated manufacturing processes, the LD groups had higher μTBS values than the FEL groups in ceramic-ceramic assembly; dentin as a substrate (ceramic-dentin assembly) had a negative influence on the results for all evaluated materials. Regarding the FEA results, the maximum tensile stress in ceramic-ceramic groups was 16.1–16.5 MPa (when 10 N load was simulated), and 50.8–51.2 MPa (during the resin cement polymerization shrinkage). For the ceramic-dentin groups, the maximum tensile stress was 16.9 and 17.1 MPa on the ceramic side and 17.6 and 17.8 MPa on the dentin side (10 N load simulation); 49.8 and 49.4 MPa on the ceramic side and 49.7 and 49.4 MPa on the dentin side (resin cement polymerization shrinkage). Different glass-ceramic compositions and manufacturing processes induced distinct bond strength values (LD had better results). Moreover, the μTBS assembly interferes with the results obtained, having the ceramic-ceramic set-up inducing higher bond results than the ceramic-dentin arrangement.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Dental Research and COVID-19
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0058 ↗
2. Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis10.1177/0022034516652848 ↗
3. Fatigue performance of adhesively cemented glass-, hybrid- and resin-ceramic materials for CAD/CAM monolithic restorations10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.013 ↗
4. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.017 ↗
5. Adhesion to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic etched with hydrofluoric acid at distinct concentrations10.1590/0103-6440201802080 ↗
6. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: a review10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.002 ↗
7. Surface conditioning protocol for the adhesion of resin-based materials to glassy matrix ceramics: how to condition and why?
8. Self-etching primers vs acid conditioning: impact on bond strength between ceram ics and resin cement10.2341/16-348-L ↗
9. Ceramic inlays: effect of mechanical cycling and ceramic type on restoration-dentin bond strength10.2341/14-155-L ↗
10. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155 ↗
11. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.015 ↗
12. Effect of different surface treatments of resin relined fiber posts cemented with self-adhesive resin cement on push-out and microtensile bond strength tests10.2341/19-108-L ↗
13. Effect of resin cement type on the microtensile bond strength to lithium disilicate ceramic and dentin using different test assemblies
14. Does the application of an adhesive layer improve the bond strength of etched and silanized glass ceramics to resin-based materials? A systematic review and meta-analysis
15. Finite element analysis model to simulate the behavior of luting cements during setting10.1016/j.dental.2004.07.023 ↗
16. Self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching: etching efficacy and bonding performance10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.002 ↗
17. Load-bearing capacity under fatigue and survival rates of adhesively cemented yttrium-stabilized zirconia polycrystal monolithic simplified restorations10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.11.009 ↗
18. Microstructure characterization and SCG of newly engineered dental ceramics10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.018 ↗
19. Bonding effectiveness of luting composites to different CAD/CAM materials
20. Chairside CAD/CAM materials. Part 1: measurement of elastic constants and microstructural characterization10.1016/j.dental.2016.10.009 ↗
21. Reliability and correlation between microshear and microtensile bond strength tests of composite repairs10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103607 ↗
22. Aspects of adhesion tests on resin–glass ceramic bonding10.1016/j.dental.2017.06.013 ↗
23. Chitosan-Based extrafibrillar demineralization for dentin bonding10.1177/0022034518805419 ↗
24. Measuring the polymerization stress of self-adhesive resin composite cements by crack propagation
25. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.002 ↗