Bond strength between a veneering composite resin and zirconia frameworks with attached mechanical retentive devices
Source abstract
Abstract
The effects of mechanical retentive devices and various surface treatments on the shear bond strength between a veneering composite resin and zirconia was investigated. Zirconia disks were classified into three surface-treatment groups: airborne-particle abrasion, overglazing, and overglazing with white alumina particles of three different grain sizes (50, 70, and 105 μm) attached onto zirconia disks (ZR-50, ZR-70, and ZR-105, respectively). They were further divided into four groups (n=44): unprimed, Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator (CA), Clearfil Photo Bond (CB), and CA+CB. An indirect composite resin was bonded to zirconia specimens. Shear bond strengths were measured. For the ZR-70 and ZR-105 groups, the CB and CA+CB specimens exhibited higher bond strengths than the other two specimens after thermocycling. The ZR-70 and ZR-105 groups achieved micromechanical interlocking, and priming with a phosphate monomer (MDP) yielded stable bond strengths between the composite resin and zirconia with alumina particles attached as retentive devices.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Building materials and conservation · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Nihon University School of Dentistry
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015; 31: 603-623.10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 ↗
2. 2) Pjetursson BE, Valente NA, Strasding M, Zwahlen M, Liu S, Sailer I. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 199-214.10.1111/clr.13306 ↗
3. 3) Rammelsberg P, Lorenzo Bermejo J, Kappel S, Meyer A, Zenthöfer A. Long-term performance of implant-supported metal-ceramic and all-ceramic single crowns. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64: 332-339.10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.006 ↗
4. 4) Beuer F, Schweiger J, Eichberger M, Kappert HF, Gernet W, Edelhoff D. High-strength CAD/CAM-fabricated veneering material sintered to zirconia copings —A new fabrication mode for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 121-128.10.1016/j.dental.2008.04.019 ↗
5. 5) Taguchi K, Komine F, Fushiki R, Blatz MB, Kamio S, Matsumura H. Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 983-991.10.1111/clr.12199 ↗
6. 6) Güngör MB, Nemli SK, Bal BT, Tamam E, Yılmaz H, Aydın C.Fracture resistance of monolithic and veneered all-ceramic four-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses after artificial aging. J Oral Sci 2019; 61: 246-254.10.2334/josnusd.18-0060 ↗
7. 7) Mühlemann S, Lakha T, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF, Benic GI. Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns in the molar region: 1-year results of a RCT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31: 856-864.10.1111/clr.13631 ↗
8. 8) da Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM, da Silva Fidalgo TK, Chianca TK, Reis KR, et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016; 54: 1-12.10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.003 ↗
9. 9) Dias MCR, Martins JNR, Chen A, Quaresma SA, Luís H, Caramês J. Prognosis of indirect composite resin cuspal coverage on endodontically treated premolars and molars: an in vivo prospective study. J Prosthodont 2018; 27: 598-604.10.1111/jopr.12545 ↗
10. 10) Çiftçi Y, Canay S. The effect of veneering materials on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 571-582.
11. 11) Conserva E, Menini M, Tealdo T, Bevilacqua M, Ravera G, Pera F, et al. The use of a masticatory robot to analyze the shock absorption capacity of different restorative materials for prosthetic implants: a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22: 53-55.
12. 12) Zenthöfer A, Rammelsberg P, Schmitt C, Ohlmann B. Wear of metal-free resin composite crowns after three years in service. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 787-792.10.4012/dmj.2013-077 ↗
13. 13) Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87-101.10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003 ↗
14. 14) Falkensammer F, Arnetzl GV, Wildburger A, Freudenthaler J.Color stability of different composite resin materials. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 378-383.10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60323-6 ↗
15. 15) Vanoorbeek S, Vandamme K, Lijnen I, Naert I. Computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured composite resin versus ceramic single-tooth restorations: A 3-year clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23: 223-230.
16. 16) Komine F, Taguchi K, Fushiki R, Kamio S, Iwasaki T, Matsumura H. In vitro comparison of fracture load of implant-supported, zirconia-based, porcelain- and composite-layered restorations after artificial aging. Dent Mater J 2014; 33: 607-613.10.4012/dmj.2013-356 ↗
17. 17) Honda J, Komine F, Kusaba K, Kitani J, Matsushima K, Matsumura H. Fracture loads of screw-retained implant-supported zirconia prostheses after thermal and mechanical stress. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64: 313-318.10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.003 ↗
18. 18) Fushiki R, Komine F, Blatz MB, Koizuka M, Taguchi K, Matsumura H. Shear bond strength between an indirect composite layering material and feldspathic porcelain-coated zirconia ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 1401-1411.10.1007/s00784-011-0641-9 ↗
19. 19) Komine F, Kobayashi K, Blatz MB, Fushiki R, Koizuka M, Taguchi K, et al. Durability of bond between an indirect composite veneering material and zirconium dioxide ceramics. Acta Odontol Scand 2013; 71: 457-463.10.3109/00016357.2012.696686 ↗
20. 20) Shue SL, Nicholls JI, Townsend JD. The effect of metal retentive designs on resin veneer retention. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 58: 297-305.10.1016/0022-3913(87)90044-8 ↗
21. 21) Barzilay I, Myers ML, Cooper LB, Graser GN. Mechanical and chemical retention of laboratory cured composite to metal surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 131-137.10.1016/0022-3913(88)90001-7 ↗
22. 22) Muratomi R, Kamada K, Taira Y, Higuchi S, Watanabe I, Sawase T. Comparative study between laser sintering and casting for retention of resin composite veneers to cobalt-chromium alloy. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 939-945.10.4012/dmj.2013-082 ↗
23. 23) Yamada K, Koizumi H, Kawamoto Y, Ishikawa Y, Matsumura H, Tanoue N. Effect of single-liquid priming agents on adhesive bonding to aluminum oxide of a methacrylic resin. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 642-646.10.4012/dmj.26.642 ↗
24. 24) Kern M. Bonding to oxide ceramics —Laboratory testing versus clinical outcome. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 8-14.10.1016/j.dental.2014.06.007 ↗
25. 25) Cura C, Özcan M, Isik G, Saracoglu A. Comparison of alternative adhesive cementation concepts for zirconia ceramic: glaze layer vs zirconia primer. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 75-82.
26. 26) Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72: 355-359.10.1016/0022-3913(94)90553-3 ↗
27. 27) Matsumura H, Yanagida H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M, Shimoe S. Shear bond strength of resin composite veneering material to gold alloy with varying metal surface preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 315-319.10.1067/mpr.2001.114823 ↗