The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
YA designed and performed the lab work and also prepared the initial draft of the study. JKB and AG assisted in the statistical analysis and manuscript preparation. MA and PKV assisted in designing the study and reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
With the increase in demand for cosmetics and esthetics, resin composite restorations and all-ceramic restorations have become an important treatment alternative. Taking into consideration the large number of prosthodontic and adhesive resins currently available, the strength and durability of these materials needs to be evaluated. This laboratory study presents the shear bond strengths of a range of veneering resin composites bonded to all-ceramic core material using different adhesive resins.
Alumina ceramic specimens (Techceram Ltd, Shipley, UK) were assigned to three groups. Three types of commercially available prosthodontic resin composites [BelleGlass®, (BG, Kerr, CA, USA), Sinfony® (SF, 3 M ESPE, Dental Products, Germany), and GC Gradia® (GCG, GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan)] were bonded to the alumina substrate using four different adhesive resins. Half the specimens per group (N = 40) were stored dry for 24 hours, the remaining were stored for 30 days in water. The bonding strength, so-called shear bond strengths between composite resin and alumina substrate were measured. Data were analysed statistically and variations in bond strength within each group were additionally evaluated by calculating the Weibull modulus.
Bond strengths were influenced by the brand of prosthodontic resin composites. Shear bond strengths of material combinations varied from 24.17 ± 3.72–10.15 ± 3.69 MPa and 21.20 ± 4.64–7.50 ± 4.22 at 24 h and 30 days, respectively. BG resin composite compared with the other resin composites provided the strongest bond with alumina substrate (p < 0.01). SF resin composite was found to have a lower bond strength than the other composites. The Weibull moduli were highest for BG, which was bonded by using Optibond Solo Plus adhesive resin at 24 h and 30 days. There was no effect of storage time and adhesive brand on bond strength.
Within the limitations of this study, the shear bond strengths of composite resins to alumina substrate are related to the composite resins.
Valittu P, Sevelius C. Resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures. J Prosth Dent. 2000;84:413–8. CrossRef
O'Brien W. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 2002. p. 12–23.
Harrison A, Moores GE. Influence of abrasive particle size and contact stress on the wear rate of dental restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1985;1(1):15–8. CrossRef
Cattell M, Clarke R, Lynch E. The transverse strength, reliability and microstructural features of four dental ceramics. J Dent. 1997;25:339–407. CrossRef
Craig R, Powers J. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed. Mosby; St. Louis. 2002; 85
Sudsaniam S, van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose? Adhesive Dent. 1999;1:57–67.
Oh W, Shen C, Al E. Wetting characteristic of ceramic to water and adhesive resin. J Prosth Dent. 2002;88:616–21. CrossRef
Oden A, Andersson M, Krystek-Ondracek I, Magnusson D. Five-year clinical evaluation of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosth Dent. 1998;80:450–6. CrossRef
Viwattanatipa N, Jermwiwatkul W, Chintavalakorn R, Kanchanavasita W. Weibull analysis of bond strength of orthodontic buccal tubes bonded to resin composite surface with various techniques. Orthodontic Waves. 2010;69(2):66–74. CrossRef
Gregory W, Moss S. Effects of heterogeneous layers of composite and time on composite repair of porcelain. Oper Dent. 1990;15:18–22. PubMed
- Shear bond strength between alumina substrate and prosthodontic resin composites with various adhesive resin systems
Yousef A AlJehani
Jagan K Baskaradoss
Marey A AlShehry
Pekka K Vallittu
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II