Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic

J Dent. 2007 Apr;35(4):282-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.09.006. Epub 2006 Nov 7.

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the micro-tensile bond strength (microTBS) of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. The hypothesis tested was that neither of the surface treatments would produce higher bond strength of the adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic.

Methods: Ceramic specimens of two different sizes (6 mm x 8 mm x 3 mm; 13 mm x 8 mm x 4 mm) were fabricated from ProCAD ceramic blocs (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with a low-speed diamond saw. The ceramic blocks were divided into seven groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4); group 3: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4)+silane; group 4: etching with 37% H(3)PO(4)+silane+adhesive resin; group 5: etching with 4.9% HF acid; group 6: etching with 4.9% HF acid+silane; group 7: etching with HF acid+silane+adhesive resin. After surface treatment, two differently sized porcelain disks were bonded together with a composite luting agent (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent). The specimens were stored for 24h in distilled water at 37 degrees C prior to microTBS testing. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the influence of surface treatment and Scheffe multiple comparisons test determined pair-wise statistical differences (p<0.05) in microTBS between the experimental groups.

Results: The mean microTBSs (standard deviation) are: group 1: 12.8 (+/-4.6)MPa; group 2: 19.1 (+/-5.0)MPa; group 3: 27.4 (+/-11.1)MPa; group 4: 34.0 (+/-8.9)MPa; group 5: 37.6 (+/-8.4) MPa; group 6: 34.6 (+/-12.8)MPa; group 7: 34.5 (+/-5.1)MPa. Statistical significant differences were found between group 1 and groups 3-7, and between group 2 and groups 4-7. All specimens of groups 1-4 exhibited adhesive failures, while a combination of adhesive and mixed (adhesive and cohesive) failures was observed in the specimens of groups 5-7.

Conclusions: The results show that surface treatment is important to bond to ceramic and suggests that etching is needed preferably with hydrofluoric acid than with phosphoric acid.

Publication types

  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Acid Etching, Dental / methods
  • Aluminum Silicates
  • Analysis of Variance
  • Dental Bonding*
  • Dental Porcelain* / chemistry
  • Dental Stress Analysis
  • Hydrofluoric Acid
  • Materials Testing
  • Phosphoric Acids
  • Resin Cements*
  • Silanes
  • Statistics, Nonparametric
  • Surface Properties
  • Tensile Strength

Substances

  • Aluminum Silicates
  • Phosphoric Acids
  • ProCAD Ceramic
  • Resin Cements
  • Silanes
  • Dental Porcelain
  • leucite
  • phosphoric acid
  • Hydrofluoric Acid