Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Japanese Dental Science Review logoLink to The Japanese Dental Science Review
. 2024 Jun 7;60:175–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.05.004

Different surface treatments and adhesive monomers for zirconia-resin bonds: A systematic review and network meta-analysis☆

Xinyang Li a, Shengjie Liang a, Masanao Inokoshi b, Shikai Zhao a, Guang Hong c, Chenmin Yao a,⁎, Cui Huang a,⁎
PMCID: PMC11208804  PMID: 38938474

Abstract

This review examined the efficacy of surface treatments and adhesive monomers for enhancing zirconia-resin bond strength. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library yielded relevant in vitro studies. Employing pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses, 77 articles meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed. Gas plasma was found to be ineffective, while treatments including air abrasion, silica coating, laser, selective infiltration etching, hot etching showed varied effectiveness. Air abrasion with finer particles (25–53 µm) showed higher immediate bond strength than larger particles (110–150 µm), with no significant difference post-aging. The Rocatec silica coating system outperformed the CoJet system in both immediate and long-term bond strength. Adhesives containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) were superior to other acidic monomers. The application of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and silane did not improve bonding performance. Notably, 91.2 % of bonds weakened after aging, but this effect was less pronounced with air abrasion or silica coating. The findings highlight the effectiveness of air abrasion, silica coating, selective infiltration etching, hot etching, and laser treatment in improving bond strength, with 10-MDP in bonding agents enhancing zirconia bonding efficacy.

Keywords: Zirconia, Bonding, Surface treatment, Adhesive strategy, Network meta-analysis

1. Introduction

The escalating demand for aesthetic dental restorations in recent years has led to a transition from metal-ceramic prostheses to metal-free alternatives. Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline (Y-TZP) ceramics have emerged as a favored choice due to their commendable mechanical properties, chemical stability, and biocompatibility [1]. In the pursuit of enhanced aesthetic attributes, certain variants of zirconia with notable translucency have entered the market, finding application in the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses, full-coverage crowns, and partial-coverage veneers [2]. Moreover, the superior mechanical characteristics of zirconia, coupled with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology, facilitate the precise production of expansive and complex restorations, yielding a high rate of success [3].

In addition to the swift progress in manufacturing technology, the long-term efficacy of ceramic restorations hinges substantially upon proper pretreatment and cementation techniques. In the case of silica-based ceramics, surface treatment involving hydrofluoric acid (5–9.6 %) and subsequent silanization proves to be an efficacious method for achieving durable bonding with resin-based luting agent [4], [5]. However, owing to the quasichemical inertness and absence of a silica phase, zirconia remains unetchable and cannot attain a satisfactory bond strength through the conventional approach outlined above [6]. Consequently, several methodologies have been scrutinized in recent years to enhance the bond between zirconia and resin-based luting agent. These approaches include air abrasion with alumina oxide particles [7], tribochemical silica coating [8], selective infiltration etching (SIE) [9] and various laser treatments [10]. Among these techniques, air abrasion, also known as airborne-particle abrasion, is the most widely employed method in clinical practice. Beyond the surface conditions, researchers have also investigated the incorporation of adhesive monomers into resin-based luting agent or primers to bolster chemical bonding. Given the slender nature of the bonding interface, the primer and cement were treated as an integrated entity when determining the truly efficacious constituents in this investigation. Subsequent to exhaustive research endeavors, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) has surfaced as an exceedingly efficacious adhesive monomer that is widely assimilated into primers and resin-based luting agent [11], [12], [13]. 10-MDP is recognized for its capacity to adhere to zirconia through the formation of hydrogen bonds between the Zr-OH and the oxygen from P = O groups or via ionic interactions between the partially positive Zr4+ and deprotonated 10-MDP (P-O-) groups [14]. Despite numerous investigations probing the influence of diverse pretreatments and adhesive monomers on zirconia bonding, a consensus on the optimal strategy to enhance bonding effectiveness and durability remains elusive.

Previous meta-analyses investigating the bonding between zirconia and resin luting agent have underscored the effectiveness of combining mechanical and chemical treatments to enhance bond performance [12], [15], [16]. Additionally, these studies identified several factors influencing the bond to zirconia, including the type of luting agent, artificial aging processes, and test methodologies [12], [15]. However, these analyses were primarily descriptive, making it challenging for clinicians to determine which specific treatments or resin luting agent compositions would yield the highest bond strength. Therefore, in response to the aforementioned challenge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of in vitro studies was specifically designed to harness the strengths of NMA by comprehensively assessing various mechanical and chemical surface treatments simultaneously. Additionally, it seeks to identify the potentially dominant factors exerting an influence on the bond strength between zirconia and resin-based luting agent, thereby supporting decision-making in clinical practice. The null hypothesis is that the application of different surface treatments and adhesive monomers does not significantly affect the zirconia-resin bond strength.

2. Materials and methods

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension Statement for NMA [17] and followed the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook. The research inquiry posed was “which surface treatment method and adhesive monomer are most advantageous for bonding to zirconia?”.

2.1. Search strategy

Five electronic databases underwent comprehensive screening in this study, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The literature search was diligently conducted by two independent reviewers and included the timeframe from January 2000 to May 30, 2023. The following search terms and their combinations were used: “zirconia,” “Y-TZP,” “zirconium dioxide,” “ZrO2,” “adhesion,” “bond,” “bonding,” “cement,” and “resin”. The specific search strategy is listed in Appendix S1.

2.2. Study selection

To uphold objectivity, two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by the extraction of potentially suitable articles. A second review was carried out by the authors once the inclusion criteria were satisfied. The complete texts of articles that held potential relevance were subject to independent evaluation by two review authors, adhering to the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 1. Only studies that fully met all the inclusion criteria were incorporated into this review. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third researcher to reach a consensus.

Table 1.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
  • •

    Between 2000 and May 2023
  • •

    Before 2000
  • •

    Literature in English
  • •

    Literature in a language other than English
  • •

    In vitro studies
  • •

    Clinical trials, pilot studies, case reports, case series, commentaries, and reviews
  • •

    Measuring strength between zirconia and resin cement
  • •

    Treatments in pre-sintered stage
  • •

    Including macroshear, microshear, macrotensile or microtensile tests
  • •

    Incomplete information or full texts unavailable
  • •

    Reporting mean and standard deviation (SD) data in MPa
  • •

    Reporting only one treatment without control
Open in a new tab

2.3. Data extraction

Two independent authors conducted data extraction using standardized forms within Microsoft Office Excel 2016. The extracted data included several key elements, including the publication year, authors, zirconia type, primer type, resin-based luting agent type, surface treatment, and mean bond strength values, along with their corresponding standard deviations. In instances where experimental groups included varying parameters within a single pretreatment method or involved the utilization of different primers or resin-based luting agents that shared common components, data amalgamation followed the guidelines stipulated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.5.2.10. To ensure precision, a rigorous cross-verification of the extracted data was conducted.

2.4. Quality and bias assessment

The assessment of bias risk within the included studies was conducted by two independent authors utilizing a modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) scale [18]. This tool, selected for its suitability in appraising the quality of in vitro studies in dentistry, has also been employed in prior dental review studies [19], [20], [21]. The evaluation of bias risk centered on the clarity of fifteen distinct elements, including a structured abstract, a specific introduction delineating background and objectives, methodological aspects such as replicability, appropriate results, sample size, randomization method and mechanism, blinding procedures, and statistical methodologies, as well as transparent reporting of results and their estimation, limitations, and supplementary information. Each of these items was assessed with a binary assignment of Yes (indicating reported, 1 point) or No (indicating not reported, 0 points). The risk bias score was categorized as follows: 0–5 points (high risk), 6–10 points (medium risk), and 11–15 points (low risk).

2.5. Statistical analysis

The quantitative analysis included the extraction of sample size, mean bond strength measured in megapascals, and standard deviation values from both immediate and aged groups. An overarching analysis was conducted using NMA to evaluate the overall effects. Additionally, standard pairwise meta-analysis (SPMA) was employed to assess specific factors pertinent to clinical practitioners, such as particle size in air abrasion, silica coating systems, and the utilization of 10-MDP.

The SPMA was executed using Review Manager (version 5.4). Given the diversity in resin-based luting agent and zirconia types across various studies, we adopted the random-effects model to derive pooled effect estimates. A 95 % confidence interval was utilized to present the results of individual studies and the pooled results, with a p-value of < 0.05 signifying statistical significance. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated through Cochran's Q test and I(2).

Four Bayesian NMAs were conducted utilizing the R package gemtc 0.9–8 [22] and R package BUGSNET version 1.0.3 [23] within the MetaInsight V4.0.0 tool [24], [25]. Two NMAs focused on surface methods, while the other two examined primer and resin-based luting agent components within immediate and aged samples. Surface treatments were categorized as follows: (1) control; (2) air abrasion; (3) silica coating; (4) SIE; (5) laser; (6) hot etching; and (7) gas plasma. The primer and resin-based luting agent components were classified as follows: (1) control; (2) 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP); (3) other acidic monomers (acidic monomers excluding 10-MDP); (4) silane; (5) 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA); (6) silane + 10-MDP; (7) silane + other acidic monomers; (8) HEMA + 10-MDP; (9) HEMA + other acidic monomers; (10) silane + HEMA + 10-MDP; (11) silane + HEMA + other acidic monomers; and (12) silane + HEMA. Network plots, illustrating clusters of control and experimental groups as nodes, with connections representing direct comparisons between the groups, were generated using Stata 17.0.

League tables were produced through Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation, with an initial 5000 iterations discarded, followed by 20,000 iterations across four chains at a thinning interval of 1 [26]. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values were calculated within the Bayesian framework to rank surface treatments [27]. A higher SUCRA value approaching 100 % indicates a greater likelihood of the corresponding surface treatment yielding the best results in terms of higher bond strengths, while a value closer to 0 % implies reduced effectiveness. Convergence was assessed via trace plots based on the Brooks Gelman-Rubin criteria, and inconsistency was evaluated using the split node method [28]. Statistical significance was established at α = 0.05, with reference to 95 % CIs.

3. Results

3.1. Study selection

Fig. 1 depicts the study selection process in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The initial search strategy yielded a total of 8878 potentially relevant studies. Following the elimination of duplicate records, 4518 articles underwent initial screening based on their titles and abstracts. Two additional studies were procured through manual searching, leading to a comprehensive assessment of 181 studies in full text for eligibility. Ultimately, 77 studies [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105] were deemed suitable for inclusion in the analysis, with 104 studies being excluded for various reasons, as outlined in the flowchart.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Study selection flowchart adhering to PRISMA guidelines.

3.2. Descriptive analysis

The key characteristics of the 77 studies selected for this review are comprehensively detailed in Appendix S2. These studies span the publication period from 2000 to 2023. In the assessment of bonding performance between resin-based luting agent and zirconia, the macroshear bond strength test (61.0 %) emerged as the most frequently employed method, followed by microshear (19.5 %), microtensile (11.7 %), and macrotensile (7.8 %) tests.

Regarding surface treatments, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, air abrasion (n = 54) was the predominant method used in the majority of studies, followed by silica coating (n = 25), laser (n = 16), SIE (n = 8), gas plasma (n = 5), and hot etching (n = 4). Fig. 2B provides an overview of the primers and resin-based luting agents utilized in this review, categorized based on their potentially functional components. Notably, "Silane + 10-MDP" and "HEMA + 10-MDP" emerged as the most prevalent combinations in adhesion, with a total of 16 instances.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Frequency distribution of surface treatments (A) and adhesive monomers (B) used in the included studies.

3.3. Risk of bias

Appendix S2 presents the risk of bias assessment for each study included, based on the modified CONSORT guidelines. The majority of the studies were categorized as having a medium risk of bias (94.8 %), while a small fraction, comprising four studies (5.2 %) [38], [75], [83], [94], were identified as carrying a high risk of bias. Notably, most studies provided a structured summary and offered detailed descriptions of the interventions. However, approximately 15.6 % of the studies omitted the explicit statement of their hypotheses. Although statistical methods were explicitly outlined in the majority of studies (97.4 %), there was notable inconsistency in the reporting of limitations (48.1 %) and disclosure of funding resources (51.9 %) across all included studies. It is worth noting that a few studies mentioned the utilization of randomization (3.9 %), but none of them furnished sufficient information concerning the mechanism employed for implementing the random allocation sequence and trial protocol. Furthermore, the process of sample size calculation was documented in only 3.9 % of the studies.

3.4. Network meta-analyses

Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 present the network maps for the NMA. In the NMAs of surface treatments and components of bonding agents, seven and twelve arms were compared with each other, respectively. The details of the Bayesian NMA, including the inconsistency test, convergence assessment, and deviance report, are presented in Appendix S3.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Network meta-analysis of immediate bond strengths in 50 studies comparing surface treatments. (A) Network plot where node size and connecting line thickness reflect sample size and direct comparisons, respectively. (B) Forest plot graph presenting the pooled effect estimates of bond strengths. (C) Cumulative ranks and SUCRA values of all surface treatments. (D) League table illustrating Bayesian comparisons for all surface treatments.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Network meta-analysis of long-term bond strengths in 35 studies comparing surface treatments. (A) Network plot where node size and connecting line thickness reflect sample size and direct comparisons, respectively. (B) Forest plot graph presenting the pooled effect estimates of bond strengths. (C) Cumulative ranks and SUCRA values of all surface treatments. (D) League table illustrating Bayesian comparisons for all surface treatments.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Network meta-analysis of immediate bond strengths in 24 studies comparing adhesive monomers. (A) Network plot where node size and connecting line thickness reflect sample size and direct comparisons, respectively. (B) Forest plot graph presenting the pooled effect estimates of bond strengths. (C) Cumulative ranks and SUCRA values of all adhesive monomer combinations.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Network meta-analysis of long-term bond strengths in 24 studies comparing adhesive monomers. (A) Network plot where node size and connecting line thickness reflect sample size and direct comparisons, respectively. (B) Forest plot graph presenting the pooled effect estimates of bond strengths. (C) Cumulative ranks and SUCRA values of all adhesive monomer combinations.

3.4.1. NMA of surface treatment

Two separate sets of NMA were carried out, one focusing on immediate data (Fig. 3) and the other on aged data (Fig. 4). Predominantly, pairwise comparisons were made between the air abrasion group and the control group (Figs. 3A, 4A). Figs. 3B and 4B illustrate that surface treatments exhibited greater effectiveness than the control group in both immediate and aged conditions, with the exception of gas plasma (immediate effect size: 2.82, 95 % CI: −1.47 to 7.16; aged effect size: 0.440, 95 % CI: −6.27 to 7.16).

The cumulative probability ranks and SUCRA values for surface treatments are displayed in Figs. 3C and 4C. In terms of the immediate bond strength between resin-based luting agent and zirconia, the probability of being the most effective surface treatment was ranked as follows: SIE (91.30 %), hot etching (86.76 %), silica coating (68.77 %), air abrasion (49.68 %), laser (33.90 %), and gas plasma (17.98 %). For long-term bond strength, the ranking was as follows: SIE (90.49 %), followed by hot etching (85.16 %), laser (56.93 %), silica coating (53.65 %), air abrasion (46.84 %), and gas plasma (9.44 %).

Figs. 3D and 4D illustrate the mean difference (MD) values for the pairwise comparisons conducted in this NMA. In comparison to the commonly employed air abrasion pretreatment method, SIE exhibited statistically superior performance (immediate comparison: 5.73, 95 % CI: 0.93 to 10.53; aged comparison: 6.15, 95 % CI: 0.72 to 11.54). However, except for gas plasma in aged conditions (aged comparison: −9.78, 95 % CI: −16.74 to −2.76), no significant differences in bond strengths were observed between the other surface treatments and air abrasion.

3.4.2. NMA of adhesive monomers

The network was established based on bond strength data from 27 studies, with 24 studies reporting immediate data and 24 studies reporting age data. These studies utilized bonding agents with varying components, resulting in a total of twelve treatment arms available for comparison (Fig. 5, Fig. 6). The forest plots comparing these different groups with the control group revealed that bonding agents containing 10-MDP (10-MDP, silane + 10-MDP, HEMA + 10-MDP, silane + HEMA + 10-MDP) exhibited effectiveness in resin-zirconia bonding. Conversely, formulations other than HEMA + other acidic monomers in aged conditions were statistically ineffective. Bonding agents containing silane, 10-MDP, and HEMA demonstrated the highest bonding potential to zirconia, while the primer containing only HEMA exhibited the lowest potential (Figs. 5C, 6C). For a comprehensive breakdown of the NMA results for all pairwise comparisons, please consult the league table provided in Appendix S4. The analysis indicated that there were no significant differences among the four formulations containing 10-MDP.

3.5. Standard PAirwise Meta-analysis

3.5.1. Particle size in air abrasion

Fig. 7 presents the results of the meta-analysis investigating the influence of different particle sizes in abrasion application on immediate and long-term bond strengths. A notable disparity in immediate bond strength was discerned between the two groups, with an advantage favoring the utilization of small particle sizes (25–53 µm) compared to large particle sizes (110–150 µm) (p < 0.00001). However, no statistically significant difference was evident in long-term bond strength (p = 0.52).

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of standard pairwise meta-analysis comparing the bond strength applying air abrasion with small particle size (25–53 µm) and large particle size (110–150 µm) in (A) immediate and (B) aged condition.

3.5.2. Silica coating system

Fig. 8 illustrates the meta-analysis findings for both immediate and aged conditions, with the silica coating system as the primary variable factor. In comparison to the CoJet system, both the Rocatec Soft and Rocatec Plus systems demonstrated superior bond-enhancing performance. Additionally, Appendix S5 provides evidence that no significant difference was observed between Rocatec Soft and Rocatec Plus, with p-values of 0.64 for immediate conditions and 0.14 for aged conditions.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of standard pairwise meta-analysis comparing the bond strength applying silica coating with CoJet, Rocatec Plus or Rocatec Soft system in (A) immediate and (B) aged condition.

3.5.3. 10-MDP in primer or resin-based luting agent

Fig. 9 presents the results of the meta-analysis pertaining to bonding agents. Notably, primers or resin-based luting agents containing 10-MDP exhibited a superior effect on zirconia-resin bond strength in comparison to those containing other acidic monomers, with an MD of 12.15 and a 95 % confidence interval ranging from 8.91 to 15.39 (p < 0.00001). This superiority was consistent across aging conditions, as indicated by a nonsignificant p-value of 0.80.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of standard pairwise meta-analysis comparing the effects of 10-MDP and other acidic monomers.

3.6. Bond durability of the main surface treatments

Fig. 10 incorporates a total of 204 bond strength data points from studies that compared the bond strength of the air abrasion group or silica coating with the control group under both immediate and long-term conditions. The graph amalgamates 102 matched data points, combining the results of both immediate and long-term bond strength for each surface treatment.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

Open in a new tab

Comparison of immediate and long-term bond strengths of the zirconia-resin bonds.

It is noteworthy that the resin-zirconia bond strength values commonly exhibited a decrease (91.2 % of samples) after undergoing artificial aging. The fitted lines for each group demonstrate that while there is a significant decline in bond strength after aging in all groups, air abrasion (m=0.78 ± 0.10, where 'm' denotes the slope of the fitted lines) and silica coating (m=0.72 ± 0.13) significantly mitigate this decline when compared to the control group, which exhibits the smallest slope (m=0.27 ± 0.11). The data points representing the air abrasion (pink dots) and silica coating (blue dots) groups are more concentrated in the upper-right quadrant, signifying relatively higher bond strength for these two surface methods when compared to the control group (gray dots).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to examine factors that may exert an influence on the bond strength and longevity of zirconia, with a specific emphasis on pretreatment techniques and the constituents of bonding agents. Based on the results of the study, the null hypothesis was rejected.

4.1. Surface treatment

In this comprehensive review, several surface treatments proved effective in enhancing both the 'immediate' and 'aged' bond strength of zirconia, with the notable exception of gas plasma, a finding consistent with prior research [12], [15], [16], [106]. Among these pretreatments, air abrasion employing alumina particles has emerged as the most frequently employed technique in both scientific investigations and clinical applications. Our results confirm the efficacy of air abrasion in improving bond strength. The irregular surface generated through the air abrasion process provides a substantial bonding surface area for zirconia. Furthermore, it contributes to increased wettability, surface energy, and hydroxyl group content, all of which are conducive to achieving higher bond strength [32], [53]. The particle sizes employed in the studies ranged from 25 to 150 µm. While the immediate bond strength was superior in the small particle size group (25–53 µm) compared to larger particles (110–150 µm), long-term bond strengths exhibited no significant difference between the two particle sizes, consistent with the findings of Comino-Garayoa et al. [107]. Typically, an increase in particle size results in greater surface roughness, a factor generally considered advantageous for bonding [94]. However, our findings indicate improved performance with smaller particle sizes, necessitating cautious interpretation and prompting the need for further research into the effect of particle size. Regardless of the particle size in air abrasion, the mean differences between the air abrasion group and the control group expanded following the aging process (Fig. 7). This suggests that air abrasion exhibits a degree of resistance to the aging effect. The coarse surfaces created by air abrasion offer superior retention effects compared to polished surfaces, thereby enhancing resistance to aging.

Optimal blasting pressure is pivotal for achieving durable zirconia-resin bonds. A study by Aung et al. revealed that both inadequate and excessive pressure failed to produce durable zirconia-resin bonds, even when adhesives containing 10-MDP were employed [7]. Large particle sizes, higher pressure, and extended treatment times may lead to the formation of microcracks and an increase in the monoclinic phase, potentially compromising the durability of zirconia [85], [108], [109]. Ozcan et al. recommended a specific air abrasion protocol, including the use of 30 to 50 µm alumina particles, pressure ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 bar, a minimum treatment duration of 20 s, a distance of 10 mm between the blast jet and the zirconia surface, and continuous movement of the blast jet to prevent defect formation [110]. Interestingly, Aurélio et al. observed that air abrasion improved the flexural strength of zirconia. This phenomenon is likely attributed to the confinement of microcracks and defects within the transformation layer, where the volume of the grains increased by approximately 4 % during the phase transformation [111]. This is probably also a result of the compressive stress generated by air abrasion. [112], [113] Additionally, Abi-Rached et al. reported that applying air abrasion before sintering zirconia tended to reduce the monoclinic phase content [114]. However, certain studies have suggested that the sequence of air abrasion and zirconia sintering had no significant effect on adhesion (Monaco et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2011; Fazi et al., 2012; Ebeid et al., 2018; Okutan, et al., 2019) [44], [115], [116], [117], [118]. Consequently, despite the demonstrated effectiveness of air abrasion with alumina particles in enhancing zirconia bond strength, careful consideration should be given to factors such as particle size, pressure, treatment duration, and their potential implications on phase transformation and zirconia durability.

Within the scope of this review, the tribochemical method (TSC) emerged as the predominant approach for silica coating. Silica coating was executed with particle sizes ranging from 30 to 110 µm, primarily utilizing the CoJet and Rocatec systems. While alternative methods such as the sol-gel process [119], [120] and physical vapor deposition [121] have been documented, TSC remains the prevailing choice. This method involves the utilization of silica-coated alumina particles, which not only introduce silica into the zirconia surface but concurrently enhance the surface roughness [122], [123]. The application of silane further enhances chemical bonds and surface energy through the formation of siloxane chains between the silica-enriched zirconia surface and resin-based luting agent [44]. Analytically, the silica coating method exhibited a higher SUCRA ranking in comparison to air abrasion, although no statistically significant distinction was observed between these two techniques in pairwise comparisons. This finding aligns with results from a previous meta-analysis, which demonstrated that TSC provides better bond durability than air abrasion [124]. The silica coating approach combines increased roughness and chemical bonding potential. However, it did not manifest statistically significant improvement when juxtaposed with air abrasion. This lack of improvement could be attributed to the manner in which silica particles are deposited, forming loose clusters on the surface rather than becoming deeply impregnated, resulting in bond strength below anticipated levels [31]. Among the distinct TSC systems examined, the Rocatec system demonstrated superior bond strength when compared to the CoJet system. This difference may be attributed to the additional step of air abrasion integrated into the Rocatec system, leading to heightened surface roughness [125]. Additionally, an innovative silica coating method employing silicon nitride hydrolysis has been reported, offering the potential for further advancements in counteracting phase transformation and optimizing zirconia bonding [126].

The utilization of lasers on zirconia surfaces is a common practice in in vitro studies due to their ability to enhance surface roughness and wettability. Laser irradiation instigated surface modifications through the release of laser energy, causing micro-explosions, vaporization, or fusion of the uppermost zirconia layer [127]. Various types of lasers, including Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, and CO2, were employed in the studies included. Bitencourt et al. reported that among various laser types, only the Er:YAG laser did not exhibit the ability to enhance zirconia bond strengths among the various laser types [127]. In our analysis, lasers received lower SUCRA rankings compared to air abrasion, although statistical significance was not established. Arami et al. found that the zirconia surface treated by the laser at the lowest power had similar surface roughness to air abrasion [128]. It is crucial to consider laser parameters carefully, as high-energy intensity lasers can lead to adverse results, such as color changes, surface melting, significant cracks, and carbonized layers [128], [129]. Consequently, prudence in laser parameter selection is primary to avoid detrimental consequences. Despite the potential advantages of lasers in zirconia bonding, the field currently lacks a universally accepted laser protocol [127]. A noteworthy development in this arena is femtosecond laser technology, based on titanium/sapphire crystals, which can generate near-infrared wavelengths (795 nm) [130]. This technology has been shown to create more regular pits on the zirconia surface compared to Er:YAG laser irradiation and improve micromechanical bonding with veneering ceramics [131]. However, it is worth noting that only one study in our review employed femtosecond laser technology [76], highlighting the need for further investigations to comprehensively understand the adhesive behavior of zirconia treated with various types of lasers.

Surface treatment methods such as SIE, hot etching, and gas plasma, while effective in laboratory experiments, are not commonly employed in clinical practice. Among these methods, SIE emerged as the most effective, statistically surpassing the commonly used air abrasion technique. SIE involves coating the zirconia surface with a conditioning agent containing glass, heating it to facilitate glass infiltration into grain boundaries, and subsequently rinsing with an acid bath to enhance retention [29]. The glass percentage in the conditioning agent may influence its melting temperature and efficiency in infiltrating the zirconia surface [39]. The current analysis underscores SIE's efficacy in establishing a robust and enduring zirconia-resin bond, likely attributed to the highly retentive surfaces it generates, facilitating resin-based luting agent penetration and interlocking. Jiang et al. reported that the SIE group had a roughness of 12.42 µm, exceeding that of the air abrasion group (8.34 µm) [57]. It is worth noting that SIE is relatively technically sensitive and involves multiple steps, necessitating further assessment of its clinical applicability.

Hot etching ranked second in SUCRA but did not exhibit a significant difference when compared to air abrasion. This method entails placing samples in a reaction kettle and heating them in a hot-etching solution, typically composed of 800 mL of methanol, 200 mL of 37 % HCl, and 2 g of ferric chloride [39], [72]. It dissolved the outermost grain structure of the zirconia surface, enhancing nanoscale roughness [132]. Notably, hot etching offers the advantage of lower temperature compared to SIE and generates less internal stress than air abrasion [133]. However, it is essential to highlight the potential risks associated with hot etching, as it involves the use of corrosive and potentially harmful chemicals, making it more hazardous than conventional surface treatments. Proper safety precautions, including protection against inhalation or ingestion and burn prevention, must be taken when employing the hot etching method. Thus, its clinical applicability requires further refinement.

In the present analysis, gas plasma was the sole surface treatment that exhibited no significant difference compared to the control group. Through chemical reactions or physical collisions induced by excited gas molecules, it can modify the zirconia surface with high-energy ion bombardment [134]. The analysis indicates that merely increasing polar groups on the zirconia surface is insufficient to generate adequate zirconia-resin bond strength. However, carbon and nitrogen plasma have been reported to enhance the bioactivity and cytocompatibility of zirconia, suggesting their potential for other dental applications, such as implant surface treatments. [135].

4.2. Adhesive monomers

In this review, the effectiveness of various chemical components in improving the adhesion of zirconia to resin was explored, with a particular focus on the role of 10-MDP. The findings unequivocally demonstrate that formulations lacking 10-MDP are ineffective in enhancing zirconia-resin bonds. Conversely, strategies based on 10-MDP exhibited significantly higher efficiency in improving bond strength, underscoring the pivotal role played by 10-MDP in zirconia-resin bonding. The key attribute of 10-MDP is its composition, which includes a phosphoric acid group that acts as an adhesion promoter for zirconia, along with a vinyl group at the opposite end that aids in polymerization with unsaturated carbon bonds [14]. The bonding mechanism involves hydroxylation-driven chemistry, where phosphate groups theoretically interact with zirconium atoms, forming either "double coordinate" or "single coordinate" bonds [136]. Recent studies employing time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry have identified various chemical bonds, including single coordinate bonds and bridging of one zirconia atom by two or three phosphate or phosphite groups [137], [138]. It is important to note that the bonding performance of 10-MDP may be compromised after prolonged storage due to hydrolysis of the ester portion induced by dissociated protons [139]. For improvement, Koko et al. proposed a novel MDP-based strategy for zirconia, which incorporates 10-MDP as a functional adhesive monomer and triethanolamine as a surface cleaner [140].

This review also examined other acidic monomers derived from different acids, such as phosphonic acid (e.g., 6-methacryloxyhexylphosphonoacetate - 6-MHPA, dipentaerythritol penta acrylate monophosphate - PENTA) and carboxylic acid (e.g., 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride - 4-META, 4-acryloyloxyethoxycarbonylphthalic acid - 4-AET, 11-methacryloyloxy-1, 10-undecanedicarboxylic acid - MAC-10). These acidic monomers possess functional groups such as phosphate groups in PENTA and 6-MHPA, which can react with zirconia, forming Zr-O-P bonds that enhance chemical bonding between zirconia and resin-based luting agent [141], [142]. While carboxylic acid-derived monomers such as 4-META demonstrated chemical bonding with the zirconia surface, they exhibited lower adsorption compared to 10-MDP [143]. Pilo et al. [144] suggested that primers formed carboxylate salts on the zirconia surface, promoting chemical interactions, but the precise chemical mechanism behind the bonding of carboxylic acid derivatives to zirconia remains unclear. Despite their potential to enhance chemical bonding, most combinations involving these acidic monomers did not demonstrate significant improvements in zirconia-resin bonds, necessitating further research to explore the effects of various acidic monomers. HEMA is a low-molecular monomer, which is commonly used in adhesives as a wetting agent [145]. Z-Prime Plus (Bisco), which contains 10-MDP, HEMA, and BPDM, is the most frequently used zirconia primer in the studies analyzed. While most studies did not light-cure Z-Prime Plus, a few studies reported that a two-layer, light-cured approach was superior to a single-layer application [146], [147]. The presence of HEMA and BPDM appeared to diminish the beneficial effect of 10-MDP. BPDM, a carboxylic monomer with a double hydroxyethyl group, could facilitate chemical interactions between 10-MDP and zirconia but create a more acidic environment that might negatively affect the durability of MDP-ZrO coordination bonds [40], [99], [136].

Regarding silane, 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (MPS) was the most commonly used silane in commercial primers and resin-based luting agents [148]. Silane is extensively employed in bonding with silica-based ceramics because its methoxy-silyl groups (–Si–O–CH3) can react with water and silica, forming a strong siloxane (–Si–O–Si–O–) network [139]. The methacryloyl groups in the silane can react with those in the resin-based luting agent through a free radical polymerization process, resulting in the formation of a strong bond [149]. However, the effectiveness of silane is limited for zirconia bonding, as zirconia lacks silica on its surface. Silane addition had little effect on zirconia bonding without silica coating, and it has been reported to increase the surface hydroxylation of zirconia while potentially impairing the adsorption and chemical activity of 10-MDP during cotreatment [138], [150], [151].

4.3. Artificial aging process

Currently, there exists no standardized protocol for water storage and thermocycling specifically tailored to zirconia-resin bond strength testing. Therefore, this study adopted a protocol based on ISO 10477–2020, designed for testing polymer-based crown and veneer materials [152]. A minimum of 5000 thermocycles was employed as part of the aging process for zirconia bonding in this investigation.

The observed mean differences between surface treatments and the control group were more pronounced in aged conditions compared to immediate conditions, except for gas plasma treatment. This observation substantiates the notion that these pretreatments confer benefits in terms of resistance to aging, aligning with previous research findings [108], [124]. It is noteworthy that the mean bond strength in aged conditions exhibited a significant decrease when compared to the immediate bond strength, as depicted in Fig. 9, where the majority of data points fall below the y = x line. The steeper slope of the fitted line for air abrasion and silica coating illustrates their capacity to mitigate the effects of aging. This observation was supported by the study conducted by E. Rigos et al. [124], which reported enhanced bond durability with these treatments when non-MDP luting agents and primers were used. This effectiveness could be attributed to the rough surfaces generated by these treatments, which impede water penetration and promote stronger chemical bonding, resulting in a more robust sealed bond interface. The similarity in the slopes for air abrasion and silica coating suggests comparable anti-aging performance. However, this stands in partial contrast to the aforementioned study by E. Rigos et al. which indicated a superior durability with TSC [124].

4.4. Advantages and limitations of the study design

This study boasts several notable strengths. This study represents the first use of an NMA approach to juxtapose the bonding efficacy of diverse surface treatments and adhesive monomers in the context of zirconia-resin bonding. It is unique in analyzing the effectiveness of different monomer combinations and comprehensively assessing both physical and chemical enhancements, providing a broad and detailed understanding of their impacts. The application of NMA facilitates a comprehensive assessment of multiple treatments or components that may not have been directly compared within a single in vitro experiment. Additionally, the Bayesian framework employed in the NMA affords the flexibility to incorporate different sources of uncertainty, enhancing the statistical model's versatility [107], [153].

Nonetheless, several limitations warrant consideration. Notably, the presence of substantial heterogeneity among the included studies may have exerted an effect on the precision of the results. Furthermore, the exclusively in vitro nature of the included studies potentially restricts the direct extrapolation of findings to clinical practice. Consequently, it is crucial to exercise prudence when interpreting the results of this analysis, duly acknowledging these aforementioned limitations.

4.5. Fields requiring further investigation

Despite SIE being identified as the most effective method, the existing evidence is limited. Consequently, further research on the utilization of SIE is still necessary. Numerous studies assessing zirconia bonding performance have been conducted within laboratory settings, often lacking the incorporation of critical oral environmental factors such as pH fluctuations, contamination by saliva or blood, and the influence of occlusal loads. Consequently, a pressing need exists for either in vivo experiments or in vitro methodologies capable of faithfully replicating the complexities of oral environments. This enhancement in research procedure standardization, particularly concerning artificial aging processes, is crucial to elevate the quality of studies and facilitate high-quality meta-analyses. Furthermore, the crucial for long-term clinical trials looms large. Such trials are essential in establishing applicable and dependable clinical guidelines for pretreatment methodologies and bonding strategies pertaining to zirconia-based restorations. These endeavors can empower clinicians to make well-informed decisions and, in turn, enhance the success rates of zirconia-based restorations within clinical practice.

5. Conclusion

Based on the primary findings of this systematic review and NMA, the following conclusions may be drawn:

  • 1.

    Excluding gas plasma, surface treatments such as air abrasion, silica coating, laser application, selective infiltration etching, and hot etching significantly enhanced the bond strength between zirconia and resin.

  • 2.

    The Rocatec system, comprising both Rocatec Soft and Rocatec Plus, exhibited superior performance over the Cojet system in TSC, regardless of the presence of aging.

  • 3.

    The incorporation of 10-MDP into the primer or cement provided a notable advantage in bond strength, surpassing the performance of other acidic monomers.

  • 4.

    Over time, the bond strength between zirconia and resin diminished, but this decrease could be ameliorated through the utilization of air abrasion and silica coating.

  • 5.

    For a comprehensive evaluation of zirconia bond performance, standardization of in vitro research methodologies and the execution of clinical trials are crucial.

Ethical statement

This study involved analysis of previously published data and did not include any human or animal subjects. Therefore, no ethical approval was required as per applicable institutional guidelines and regulations.

Coflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 82101056 and No.82271010), Wuhan Yingcai – Outstanding Young Talents (No. PM0218003), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2042022kf1161).

Footnotes

☆

Scientific field of dental Science: Dental zirconia materials

Appendix A

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.05.004.

Contributor Information

Chenmin Yao, Email: yao_chenmin@whu.edu.cn.

Cui Huang, Email: huangcui@whu.edu.cn.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (97.9KB, docx)

.

References

  • 1.Manicone P.F., Rossi Iommetti P., Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent. 2007;35(11):819–826. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ye X.Y., Liu M.Y., Li J., Liu X.Q., Liao Y., Zhan L.L., et al. Effects of cold atmospheric plasma treatment on resin bonding to high-translucency zirconia ceramics. Dent Mater J. 2022;41(6):896–904. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2022-068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guazzato M., Albakry M., Ringer S.P., Swain M.V. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004;20(5):449–456. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chen B., Lu Z., Meng H., Chen Y., Yang L., Zhang H., et al. Effectiveness of pre-silanization in improving bond performance of universal adhesives or self-adhesive resin cements to silica-based ceramics: Chemical and in vitro evidences. Dent Mater. 2019;35(4):543–553. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Müller N., Al-Haj Husain N., Chen L., Özcan M. Adhesion of different resin cements to zirconia: effect of incremental versus bulk build up, use of mould and ageing. Materials. 2022;15(6):2186. doi: 10.3390/ma15062186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zens M.A., Icochea A.L., Costa B.C., Lisboa-Filho P.N., Bastos N.A., Francisconi P.A.S., et al. A new approach for Y-TZP surface treatment: evaluations of roughness and bond strength to resin cemen. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27 doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aung S., Takagaki T., Lyann S.K., Ikeda M., Inokoshi M., Sadr A., et al. Effects of alumina-blasting pressure on the bonding to super/ultra-translucent zirconia. Dent Mater. 2019;35(5):730–739. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Heikkinen T.T., Lassila L.V., Matinlinna J.P., Vallittu P.K. Effect of operating air pressure on tribochemical silica-coating. Acta Odontol Scand. 2007;65(4):241–248. doi: 10.1080/00016350701459753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Aboushelib M.N., Kleverlaan C.J., Feilzer A.J. Selective infiltration-etching technique for a strong and durable bond of resin cements to zirconia-based materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98(5):379–388. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60123-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cavalcanti A.N., Foxton R.M., Watson T.F., Oliveira M.T., Giannini M., Marchi G.M. Bond strength of resin cements to a zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments. Oper Dent. 2009;34(3):280–287. doi: 10.2341/08-80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Quigley N.P., Loo D.S.S., Choy C., Ha W.N. Clinical efficacy of methods for bonding to zirconia: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):231–240. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ozcan M., Bernasconi M. Adhesion to zirconia used for dental restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(1):7–26. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a33525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Valente F., Mavriqi L., Traini T. Effects of 10-MDP based primer on shear bond strength between zirconia and new experimental resin cement. Mater (Basel) 2020;13(1) doi: 10.3390/ma13010235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nagaoka N., Yoshihara K., Feitosa V.P., Tamada Y., Irie M., Yoshida Y., et al. Chemical interaction mechanism of 10-MDP with zirconia. Sci Rep. 2017;7 doi: 10.1038/srep45563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Inokoshi M., De Munck J., Minakuchi S., Van Meerbeek B. Meta-analysis of bonding effectiveness to zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res. 2014;93(4):329–334. doi: 10.1177/0022034514524228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Scaminaci Russo D., Cinelli F., Sarti C., Giachetti L. Adhesion to zirconia: a systematic review of current conditioning methods and bonding materials. Dent J (Basel) 2019;7(3) doi: 10.3390/dj7030074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hutton B., Salanti G., Caldwell D.M., Chaimani A., Schmid C.H., Cameron C., et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–784. doi: 10.7326/M14-2385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Faggion C.M., Jr. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J Evid Based Dent Pr. 2012;12(4):182–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tsikopoulos K., Meroni G., Kaloudis P., Pavlidou E., Gravalidis C., Tsikopoulos I., et al. Is nanomaterial- and vancomycin-loaded polymer coating effective at preventing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus growth on titanium disks? An in vitro study. Int Orthop. 2023;47(6):1415–1422. doi: 10.1007/s00264-023-05757-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ghilotti J., Mayorga P., Sanz J.L., Forner L., Llena C. Remineralizing ability of resin modified glass ionomers (RMGICs): a systematic review. J Funct Biomater. 2023;14(8) doi: 10.3390/jfb14080421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bangera M.K., Kotian R., Madhyastha P. Effects of silver nanoparticle-based antimicrobial formulations on the properties of denture polymer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(2):310–321. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Balduzzi S., Rücker G., Nikolakopoulou A., Papakonstantinou T., Salanti G., Efthimiou O., et al. netmeta: an R Package for network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. J Stat Softw. 2023;106(2):1–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Béliveau A., Boyne D.J., Slater J., Brenner D., Arora P. BUGSnet: an R package to facilitate the conduct and reporting of Bayesian network Meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Method. 2019;19(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0829-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Owen R.K., Bradbury N., Xin Y., Cooper N., Sutton A. MetaInsight: an interactive web-based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta-analyses using R-shiny and netmeta. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(4):569–581. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fehrenbach J., Isolan C.P., Münchow E.A. Is the presence of 10-MDP associated to higher bonding performance for self-etching adhesive systems? A meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent Mater. 2021;37(10):1463–1485. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.van Ravenzwaaij D., Cassey P., Brown S.D. A simple introduction to Markov Chain Monte-Carlo sampling. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25(1):143–154. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1015-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nevill C.R., Cooper N.J., Sutton A.J. A multifaceted graphical display, including treatment ranking, was developed to aid interpretation of network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;157:83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dias S., Welton N.J., Caldwell D.M., Ades A.E. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7-8):932–944. doi: 10.1002/sim.3767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aboushelib M.N., Feilzer A.J., Kleverlaan C.J. Bonding to zirconia using a new surface treatment. J Prosthodont. 2010;19(5):340–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Aboushelib M.N. Fusion sputtering for bonding to zirconia-based materials. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(4):323–328. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a25684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abu Ruja M., De Souza G.M., Finer Y. Ultrashort-pulse laser as a surface treatment for bonding between zirconia and resin cement. Dent Mater. 2019;35(11):1545–1556. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ahn J.S., Yi Y.A., Lee Y., Seo D.G. Shear bond strength of MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement and Y-TZP ceramics: effect of phosphate monomer-containing primers. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015 doi: 10.1155/2015/389234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ahn J.J., Kim D.S., Bae E.B., Kim G.C., Jeong C.M., Huh J.B., et al. Effect of non-thermal atmospheric pressure plasma (NTP) and zirconia primer treatment on shear bond strength between Y-TZP and resin cement. Mater (Basel) 2020;13(18) doi: 10.3390/ma13183934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Akay C., Çakırbay Tanış M., Şen M. Effects of hot chemical etching and 10-Metacryloxydecyl Dihydrogen Phosphate (MDP) monomer on the bond strength of zirconia ceramics to resin-based cements. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(5):419–423. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Amaral R., Ozcan M., Valandro L.F., Balducci I., Bottino M.A. Effect of conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of phosphate monomer-based cement on zirconia ceramic in dry and aged conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;85(1):1–9. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Asadzadeh N., Ghorbanian F., Ahrary F., Rajati Haghi H., Karamad R., Yari A., et al. Bond strength of resin cement and glass ionomer to Nd:YAG laser-treated zirconia ceramics. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):e881–e885. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Baldissara P., Querzè M., Monaco C., Scotti R., Fonseca R.G. Efficacy of surface treatments on the bond strength of resin cements to two brands of zirconia ceramic. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(3):259–267. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a28729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cao Y., Zhang J.F., Ou X., Zhang B., Chen L., Deng X.H. The effects of four primers and two cement types on the bonding strength of zirconia. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(5):248. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-4909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Casucci A., Monticelli F., Goracci C., Mazzitelli C., Cantoro A., Papacchini F., et al. Effect of surface pre-treatments on the zirconia ceramic-resin cement microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater. 2011;27(10):1024–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen C., Xie H., Song X., Burrow M.F., Chen G., Zhang F. Evaluation of a commercial primer for bonding of zirconia to two different resin composite cements. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(2):169–176. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a31809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cheung G.J., Botelho M.G. Zirconia surface treatments for resin bonding. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(6):551–558. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a35249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.da Silva E.M., Miragaya L., Sabrosa C.E., Maia L.C. Stability of the bond between two resin cements and an yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic after six months of aging in water. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(3):568–575. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dal Piva A.M.O., Carvalho R.L.A., Lima A.L., Bottino M.A., Melo R.M., Valandro L.F. Silica coating followed by heat-treatment of MDP-primer for resin bond stability to yttria-stabilized zirconia polycrystals. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019;107(1):104–111. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ebeid K., Wille S., Salah T., Wahsh M., Zohdy M., Kern M. Bond strength of resin cement to zirconia treated in pre-sintered stage. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;86:84–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.06.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Elraggal A., Chen X., Silikas N. Effect of Sandblasting with fluorapatite glass-ceramic powder and chemical primers/adhesives on shear bond strength of indirect repairing composite to Zirconia. Oper Dent. 2022;47(5):574–584. doi: 10.2341/21-108-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fathpour K., Nili Ahmadabadi M., Atash R., Fathi A.H. Effect of different surface treatment methods on the shear bond strength of resin composite/zirconia for intra-oral repair of Zirconia Restorations. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(3):809–817. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1756475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Foxton R.M., Cavalcanti A.N., Nakajima M., Pilecki P., Sherriff M., Melo L., et al. Durability of resin cement bond to aluminium oxide and zirconia ceramics after air abrasion and laser treatment. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(2):84–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00678.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Galvão Ribeiro B.R., Galvão Rabelo Caldas M.R., Almeida A.A., Jr., Fonseca R.G., Adabo G.L. Effect of surface treatments on repair with composite resin of a partially monoclinic phase transformed yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(2):286–291. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ghasemi A., Kermanshah H., Ghavam M., Nateghifard A., Torabzadeh H., Nateghifard A., et al. Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment on microshear bond strength of zirconia to resin cement before and after sintering. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(4):377–382. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a32444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Go E.J., Shin Y., Park J.W. Evaluation of the microshear bond strength of MDP-containing and Non-MDP-containing Self-adhesive Resin Cement on Zirconia Restoration. Oper Dent. 2019;44(4):379–385. doi: 10.2341/18-132-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gökkaya F.A., Stawarczyk B., Hämmerle C.H., Sailer I. Influence of silanes on the shear bond strength of resin cements to zirconia. Quintessence Int. 2013;44(8):591–600. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a29754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gomes A.L., Ramos J.C., Santos-del Riego S., Montero J., Albaladejo A. Thermocycling effect on microshear bond strength to zirconia ceramic using Er:YAG and tribochemical silica coating as surface conditioning. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(2):787–795. doi: 10.1007/s10103-013-1433-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Grasel R., Santos M.J., Rêgo H.C., Rippe M.P., Valandro L.F. Effect of Resin Luting Systems and Alumina Particle Air Abrasion on Bond Strength to Zirconia. Oper Dent. 2018;43(3):282–290. doi: 10.2341/15-352-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gutierrez M.F., Perdigão J., Malaquias P., Cardenas A.M., Siqueira F., Hass V., et al. Effect of methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate-containing silane and adhesive used alone or in combination on the bond strength and chemical interaction with zirconia ceramics under thermal aging. Oper Dent. 2020;45(5):516–527. doi: 10.2341/18-093-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hallmann L., Ulmer P., Lehmann F., Wille S., Polonskyi O., Johannes M., et al. Effect of surface modifications on the bond strength of zirconia ceramic with resin cement resin. Dent Mater. 2016;32(5):631–639. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hatami M., Lotfi-Kamran M., Davari A., Molazem M. Effect of different laser treatments on the shear bond strength of zirconia ceramic to resin cement. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2021;18:56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Jiang T., Chen C., Lv P. Selective infiltrated etching to surface treat zirconia using a modified glass agent. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(6):553–557. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a33195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kasraei S., Atefat M., Beheshti M., Safavi N., Mojtahedi M., Rezaei-Soufi L. Effect of SUrface Treatment with Carbon Dioxide (CO2) laser on bond strength between cement resin and zirconia. J Lasers Med Sci. 2014;5(3):115–120. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kasraei S., Rezaei-Soufi L., Heidari B., Vafaee F. Bond strength of resin cement to CO2 and Er:YAG laser-treated zirconia ceramic. Restor Dent Endod. 2014;39(4):296–302. doi: 10.5395/rde.2014.39.4.296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kasraei S., Rezaei-Soufi L., Yarmohamadi E., Shabani A. Effect of CO2 and Nd:YAG Lasers on Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cement to Zirconia Ceramic. J Dent (Tehran) 2015;12(9):686–694. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kern M., Barloi A., Yang B. Surface conditioning influences zirconia ceramic bonding. J Dent Res. 2009;88(9):817–822. doi: 10.1177/0022034509340881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kim J.H., Chae S.Y., Lee Y., Han G.J., Cho B.H. Effects of multipurpose, universal adhesives on resin bonding to zirconia ceramic. Oper Dent. 2015;40(1):55–62. doi: 10.2341/13-303-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kim M., Kim R.H., Lee S.C., Lee T.K., Hayashi M., Yu B., et al. Evaluation of tensile bond strength between self-adhesive resin cement and surface-pretreated zirconia. Mater (Basel) 2022;15(9) doi: 10.3390/ma15093089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kirmali O., Barutcigil Ç., Ozarslan M.M., Barutcigil K., Harorlı O.T. Repair bond strength of composite resin to sandblasted and laser irradiated Y-TZP ceramic surfaces. Scanning. 2015;37(3):186–192. doi: 10.1002/sca.21197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kitayama S., Nikaido T., Takahashi R., Zhu L., Ikeda M., Foxton R.M., et al. Effect of primer treatment on bonding of resin cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 2010;26(5):426–432. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Koizumi H., Nakayama D., Komine F., Blatz M.B., Matsumura H. Bonding of resin-based luting cements to zirconia with and without the use of ceramic priming agents. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(4):385–392. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a22711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lee J.J., Choi J.Y., Seo J.M. Influence of nano-structured alumina coating on shear bond strength between Y-TZP ceramic and various dual-cured resin cements. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(2):130–137. doi: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.2.130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Liu D., Pow E.H.N., Tsoi J.K., Matinlinna J.P. Evaluation of four surface coating treatments for resin to zirconia bonding. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;32:300–309. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Liu D., Tsoi J.K., Matinlinna J.P., Wong H.M. Effects of some chemical surface modifications on resin zirconia adhesion. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015;46:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Liu L., Liu S., Song X., Zhu Q., Zhang W. Effect of Nd: YAG laser irradiation on surface properties and bond strength of zirconia ceramics. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(2):627–634. doi: 10.1007/s10103-013-1381-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lopes G.C., Spohr A.M., De Souza G.M. Different strategies to bond Bis-GMA-based resin cement to zirconia. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(3):239–246. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a36137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Lv P., Yang X., Jiang T. Influence of hot-etching surface treatment on zirconia/resin shear bond strength. Mater (Basel) 2015;8(12):8087–8096. doi: 10.3390/ma8125409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Maroun E.V., Guimarães J., de Miranda W.G., Jr., Netto L., Elias A.B., da Silva E.M. Bond Strength Stability of Self-adhesive Resin Cement to Etched Vitrified Yttria-stabilized Tetragonal Zirconia Polycrystal Ceramic After Thermomechanical Cycling. Oper Dent. 2019;44(5):545–555. doi: 10.2341/18-131-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Martins S.B., Abi-Rached F.O., Adabo G.L., Baldissara P., Fonseca R.G. Influence of particle and air-abrasion moment on Y-TZP surface characterization and bond strength. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e271–e278. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Noda Y., Nakajima M., Takahashi M., Mamanee T., Hosaka K., Takagaki T., et al. The effect of five kinds of surface treatment agents on the bond strength to various ceramics with thermocycle aging. Dent Mater J. 2017;36(6):755–761. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2016-383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Okutan Y., Kandemir B., Gundogdu Y., Kilic H.S., Yucel M.T. Combined application of femtosecond laser and air-abrasion protocols to monolithic zirconia at different sintering stages: effects on surface roughness and resin bond strength. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2021;109(4):596–605. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Oliveira-Ogliari A., Collares F.M., Feitosa V.P., Sauro S., Ogliari F.A., Moraes R.R. Methacrylate bonding to zirconia by in situ silica nanoparticle surface deposition. Dent Mater. 2015;31(1):68–76. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Oyagüe R.C., Monticelli F., Toledano M., Osorio E., Ferrari M., Osorio R. Effect of water aging on microtensile bond strength of dual-cured resin cements to pre-treated sintered zirconium-oxide ceramics. Dent Mater. 2009;25(3):392–399. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Özdemir H., Yanikoğlu N., Sağsöz N. Effect of MDP-Based Silane and Different Surface Conditioner Methods on Bonding of Resin Cements to Zirconium Framework. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):79–84. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Pott P.C., Syväri T.S., Stiesch M., Eisenburger M. Influence of nonthermal argon plasma on the shear bond strength between zirconia and different adhesives and luting composites after artificial aging. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(4):308–314. doi: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Park C., Park S.W., Yun K.D., Ji M.K., Kim S., Yang Y.P., et al. Effect of plasma treatment and its post process duration on shear bonding strength and antibacterial effect of dental zirconia. Mater (Basel) 2018;11(11) doi: 10.3390/ma11112233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Qeblawi D.M., Muñoz C.A., Brewer J.D., Monaco E.A., Jr. The effect of zirconia surface treatment on flexural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103(4):210–220. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60033-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Román-Rodríguez J.L., Fons-Font A., Amigó-Borrás V., Granell-Ruiz M., Busquets-Mataix D., Panadero R.A., et al. Bond strength of selected composite resin-cements to zirconium-oxide ceramic. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18(1):e115–e123. doi: 10.4317/medoral.18243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Ruales-Carrera E., Cesar P.F., Henriques B., Fredel M.C., Özcan M., Volpato C.A.M. Adhesion behavior of conventional and high-translucent zirconia: effect of surface conditioning methods and aging using an experimental methodology. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31(4):388–397. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Saade J., Skienhe H., Ounsi H.F., Matinlinna J.P., Salameh Z. Evaluation of the effect of different surface treatments, aging and enzymatic degradation on zirconia-resin micro-shear bond strength. Clin Cosmet Invest Dent. 2020;12:1–8. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S219705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Saleh N.E., Guven M.C., Yildirim G., Erol F. Effect of different surface treatments and ceramic primers on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia ceramic. Niger J Clin Pr. 2019;22(3):335–341. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_394_18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Sales A., Rodrigues S.J., Mahesh M., Ginjupalli K., Shetty T., Pai U.Y., et al. Effect of different surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength and surface characteristics of zirconia: an in vitro study. Int J Dent. 2022;2022 doi: 10.1155/2022/1546802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Samimi P., Hasankhani A., Matinlinna J.P., Mirmohammadi H. Effect of adhesive resin type for bonding to zirconia using two surface pretreatments. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(4):353–359. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a34593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Sciasci P., Abi-Rached F.O., Adabo G.L., Baldissara P., Fonseca R.G. Effect of surface treatments on the shear bond strength of luting cements to Y-TZP ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(3):212–219. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Shin Y.J., Shin Y., Yi Y.A., Kim J., Lee I.B., Cho B.H., et al. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of resin cement to Y-TZP ceramic after different surface treatments. Scanning. 2014;36(5):479–486. doi: 10.1002/sca.21142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Steiner R., Heiss-Kisielewsky I., Schwarz V., Schnabl D., Dumfahrt H., Laimer J., et al. Zirconia primers improve the shear bond strength of dental zirconia. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(1):62–68. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Su Z., Li M., Zhang L., Wang C., Zhang L., Xu J., et al. A novel porous silica-zirconia coating for improving bond performance of dental zirconia. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2021;22(3):214–222. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B2000448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Takeuchi K., Fujishima A., Manabe A., Kuriyama S., Hotta Y., Tamaki Y., et al. Combination treatment of tribochemical treatment and phosphoric acid ester monomer of zirconia ceramics enhances the bonding durability of resin-based luting cements. Dent Mater J. 2010;29(3):316–323. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2009-099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Tsuo Y., Yoshida K., Atsuta M. Effects of alumina-blasting and adhesive primers on bonding between resin luting agent and zirconia ceramics. Dent Mater J. 2006;25(4):669–674. doi: 10.4012/dmj.25.669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Unal S.M., Nigiz R., Polat Z.S., Usumez A. Effect of ultrashort pulsed laser on bond strength of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic to tooth surfaces. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(3):351–357. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Usumez A., Hamdemirci N., Koroglu B.Y., Simsek I., Parlar O., Sari T. Bond strength of resin cement to zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(1):259–266. doi: 10.1007/s10103-012-1136-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Valverde G.B., Coelho P.G., Janal M.N., Lorenzoni F.C., Carvalho R.M., Thompson V.P., et al. Surface characterisation and bonding of Y-TZP following non-thermal plasma treatment. J Dent. 2013;41(1):51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Vasconcelos Monteiro R., Dos Santos D.M., Chrispim B., Bernardon J.K., Soares Porto T., De Souza G.M. Effect of universal adhesives on long-term bond strength to zirconia. J Adhes Dent. 2022;24(1):385–394. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b3512333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Wang C., Niu L.N., Wang Y.J., Jiao K., Liu Y., Zhou W., et al. Bonding of resin cement to zirconia with high pressure primer coating. PLoS One. 2014;9(7) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Yagawa S., Komine F., Fushiki R., Kubochi K., Kimura F., Matsumura H. Effect of priming agents on shear bond strengths of resin-based luting agents to a translucent zirconia material. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(2):204–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Yang L., Chen B., Xie H., Chen Y., Chen Y., Chen C. Durability of resin bonding to zirconia using products containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(4):279–287. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a40989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Yoshida K. Influence of alumina air-abrasion for highly translucent partially stabilized zirconia on flexural strength, surface properties, and bond strength of resin cement. J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;28 doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Yue X., Hou X., Gao J., Bao P., Shen J. Effects of MDP-based primers on shear bond strength between resin cement and zirconia. Exp Ther Med. 2019;17(5):3564–3572. doi: 10.3892/etm.2019.7382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Yun J.Y., Ha S.R., Lee J.B., Kim S.H. Effect of sandblasting and various metal primers on the shear bond strength of resin cement to Y-TZP ceramic. Dent Mater. 2010;26(7):650–658. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Zakavi F., Mombeini M., Dibazar S., Gholizadeh S. Evaluation of shear bond strength of zirconia to composite resin using different adhesive systems. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019;11(3):e257–e263. doi: 10.4317/jced.55428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Thammajaruk P., Inokoshi M., Chong S., Guazzato M. Bonding of composite cements to zirconia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;80:258–268. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Comino-Garayoa R., Peláez J., Tobar C., Rodríguez V., Suárez M.J. Adhesion to zirconia: a systematic review of surface pretreatments and resin cements. Mater (Basel) 2021;14(11) doi: 10.3390/ma14112751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Turp V., Sen D., Tuncelli B., Goller G., Özcan M. Evaluation of air-particle abrasion of Y-TZP with different particles using microstructural analysis. Aust Dent J. 2013;58(2):183–191. doi: 10.1111/adj.12065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Rona N., Yenisey M., Kucukturk G., Gurun H., Cogun C., Esen Z. Effect of electrical discharge machining on dental Y-TZP ceramic-resin bonding. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(2):158–167. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Ozcan M. Air abrasion of zirconia resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses prior to adhesive cementation: why and how? J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(4):394. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a30476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Aurélio I.L., Marchionatti A.M., Montagner A.F., May L.G., Soares F.Z. Does air particle abrasion affect the flexural strength and phase transformation of Y-TZP? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2016;32(6):827–845. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Inokoshi M., Zhang F., Vanmeensel K., De M.J., Minakuchi S., Naert I., et al. Residual compressive surface stress increases the bending strength of dental zirconia. Dent Mater. 2017;33(4):e147–e154. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Inokoshi M., Shimizubata M., Nozaki K., Takagaki T., Yoshihara K., Minakuchi S., et al. Impact of sandblasting on the flexural strength of highly translucent zirconia. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021;115 doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Abi-Rached F.O., Martins S.B., Almeida-Júnior A.A., Adabo G.L., Góes M.S., Fonseca R.G. Air abrasion before and/or after zirconia sintering: surface characterization, flexural strength, and resin cement bond strength. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):E66–E75. doi: 10.2341/14-013-LR1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Monaco C., Cardelli P., Scotti R., Valandro L.F. Pilot evaluation of four experimental conditioning treatments to improve the bond strength between resin cement and Y-TZP ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(2):97–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00677.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Moon J.E., Kim S.H., Lee J.B., Ha S.R., Choi Y.S. The effect of preparation order on the crystal structure of yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal and the shear bond strength of dental resin cements. Dent Mater. 2011;27(7):651–663. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Fazi G., Vichi A., Ferrari M. Influence of surface pretreatment on the short-term bond strength of resin composite to a zirconia-based material. Am J Dent. 2012;25(2):73–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Okutan Y., Yucel M.T., Gezer T., Donmez M.B. Effect of airborne particle abrasion and sintering order on the surface roughness and shear bond strength between Y-TZP ceramic and resin cement. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(2):241–249. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Lung C.Y., Kukk E., Matinlinna J.P. The effect of silica-coating by sol-gel process on resin-zirconia bonding. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(1):165–172. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2012-100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Xie H., Wang X., Wang Y., Zhang F., Chen C., Xia Y. Effects of sol-gel processed silica coating on bond strength of resin cements to glass-infiltrated alumina ceramic. J Adhes Dent. 2009;11(1):49–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Cakir-Omur T., Gozneli R., Ozkan Y. Effects of silica coating by physical vapor deposition and repeated firing on the low-temperature degradation and flexural strength of a zirconia ceramic. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):e186–e194. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Nagaoka N., Yoshihara K., Tamada Y., Yoshida Y., Meerbeek B.V. Ultrastructure and bonding properties of tribochemical silica-coated zirconia. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(1):107–113. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2017-397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Araújo A.M.M., Januário A., Moura D.M.D., Tribst J.P.M., Özcan M., Souza R.O.A. Can the application of multi-mode adhesive be a substitute to silicatized/silanized Y-TZP ceramics? Braz Dent J. 2018;29(3):275–281. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201801862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Rigos A.E., Sarafidou K., Kontonasaki E. Zirconia bond strength durability following artificial aging: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2023;59:138–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2023.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Fonseca R.G., Haneda I.G., Almeida-Júnior A.A., de Oliveira Abi-Rached F., Adabo G.L. Efficacy of air-abrasion technique and additional surface treatment at titanium/resin cement interface. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(5):453–459. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a23444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Lung C.Y., Liu D., Matinlinna J.P. Silica coating of zirconia by silicon nitride hydrolysis on adhesion promotion of resin to zirconia. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015;46:103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.10.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Bitencourt S.B., Ferreira L.C., Mazza L.C., Dos Santos D.M., Pesqueira A.A., Theodoro L.H. Effect of laser irradiation on bond strength between zirconia and resin cement or veneer ceramic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021;21(2):125–137. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_590_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Arami S., Tabatabae M.H., Namdar S.F., Chiniforush N. Effects of different lasers and particle abrasion on surface characteristics of zirconia ceramics. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11(2):233–241. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Martins F.V., Mattos C.T., Cordeiro W.J.B., Fonseca E.M. Evaluation of zirconia surface roughness after aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion and the erbium-YAG, neodymium-doped YAG, or CO(2) lasers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(6):895–903. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.001. e892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Vicente M., Gomes A.L., Montero J., Rosel E., Seoane V., Albaladejo A. Influence of cyclic loading on the adhesive effectiveness of resin-zirconia interface after femtosecond laser irradiation and conventional surface treatments. Lasers Surg Med. 2016;48(1):36–44. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Yilmaz-Savas T., Demir N., Ozturk A.N., Kilic H.S. Effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of lithium disilicate ceramic to the zirconia core. Photo Laser Surg. 2016;34(6):236–243. doi: 10.1089/pho.2015.4063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Casucci A., Mazzitelli C., Monticelli F., Toledano M., Osorio R., Osorio E., et al. Morphological analysis of three zirconium oxide ceramics: effect of surface treatments. Dent Mater. 2010;26(8):751–760. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Xie H., Chen C., Dai W., Chen G., Zhang F. In vitro short-term bonding performance of zirconia treated with hot acid etching and primer conditioning etching and primer conditioning. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(6):928–938. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2013-010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Babaeva N.Y., Naidis G.V. Modeling of plasmas for biomedicine. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(6):603–614. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Guo S., Liu N., Liu K., Li Y., Zhang W., Zhu B., et al. Effects of carbon and nitrogen plasma immersion ion implantation on bioactivity of zirconia. RSC Adv. 2020;10(59):35917–35929. doi: 10.1039/d0ra05853j. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Xie H., Tay F.R., Zhang F., Lu Y., Shen S., Chen C. Coupling of 10-methacryloyloxydecyldihydrogenphosphate to tetragonal zirconia: effect of pH reaction conditions on coordinate bonding. Dent Mater. 2015;31(10):e218–e225. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Lima R.B.W., Barreto S.C., Alfrisany N.M., Porto T.S., De Souza G.M., De Goes M.F. Effect of silane and MDP-based primers on physico-chemical properties of zirconia and its bond strength to resin cement. Dent Mater. 2019;35(11):1557–1567. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Chuang S.F., Kang L.L., Liu Y.C., Lin J.C., Wang C.C., Chen H.M., et al. Effects of silane- and MDP-based primers application orders on zirconia-resin adhesion-A ToF-SIMS study. Dent Mater. 2017;33(8):923–933. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Teshima I. Degradation of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate. J Dent Res. 2010;89(11):1281–1286. doi: 10.1177/0022034510379018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Koko M., Takagaki T., Abd El-Sattar N.E.A., Tagami J., Abdou A. MDP salts: a new bonding strategy for zirconia. J Dent Res. 2022;101(7):769–776. doi: 10.1177/00220345211070758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Yang J., Shen J., Wu X., He F., Xie H., Chen C. Effects of nano-zirconia fillers conditioned with phosphate ester monomers on the conversion and mechanical properties of Bis-GMA- and UDMA-based resin composites. J Dent. 2020;94 doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Chen Y., Tay F.R., Lu Z., Chen C., Qian M., Zhang H., et al. Dipentaerythritol penta-acrylate phosphate - an alternative phosphate ester monomer for bonding of methacrylates to zirconia. Sci Rep. 2016;6 doi: 10.1038/srep39542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Khanlar L.N., Takagaki T., Inokoshi M., Ikeda M., Nikaido T., Tagami J. The effect of carboxyl-based monomers on resin bonding to highly translucent zirconia ceramics. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(6):956–962. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Pilo R., Kaitsas V., Zinelis S., Eliades G. Interaction of zirconia primers with yttria-stabilized zirconia surfaces. Dent Mater. 2016;32(3):353–362. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.11.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Shafiei F., Fattah Z., Kiomarsi N., Dashti M.H. Influence of primers and additional resin layer on zirconia repair bond strength. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(7):826–832. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Seabra B., Arantes-Oliveira S., Portugal J. Influence of multimode universal adhesives and zirconia primer application techniques on zirconia repair. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(2):182–187. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Magne P., Paranhos M.P., Burnett L.H., Jr. New zirconia primer improves bond strength of resin-based cements. Dent Mater. 2010;26(4):345–352. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Lung C.Y., Matinlinna J.P. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater. 2012;28(5):467–477. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Matinlinna J.P., Lassila L.V., Ozcan M., Yli-Urpo A., Vallittu P.K. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(2):155–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Ye S., Chuang S.F., Hou S.S., Lin J.C., Kang L.L., Chen Y.C. Interaction of silane with 10-MDP on affecting surface chemistry and resin bonding of zirconia. Dent Mater. 2022;38(4):715–724. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.02.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Ye S., Lin J.C., Kang L.L., Li C.L., Hou S.S., Lee T.L., et al. Investigations of silane-MDP interaction in universal adhesives: A ToF-SIMS analysis. Dent Mater. 2022;38(1):183–193. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.ISO 10477: 2020 Dentistry—Polymer-Based Crown and Veneering Materials. Available online: 〈https://www.iso.org/standard/80007.html〉.
  • 153.Shim S.R., Kim S.J., Lee J., Rücker G. Network meta-analysis: application and practice using R software. Epidemiol Health. 2019;41 doi: 10.4178/epih.e2019013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (97.9KB, docx)

Articles from The Japanese Dental Science Review are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES