Abstract
Objective
The purpose of the present in vitro study is to compare and evaluate the shear bond strength of porcelain and composite using different bonding agents.
Materials and methods
Sixty-three porcelain pellets were prepared and were divided into 9 groups. Three surface treatment and two bonding agents were evaluated. The surface treatment were: 1) sandblasting; 2) etching with 35% phosphoric acid; and 3) etching with 8% hydrofluoric acid. Applying bonding agents Scotch bond adhesive and clearfil liner bond 2V and combination of these treatments. Composite resin was condensed and light cured for 60 seconds on the porcelain specimens which were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours before mechanical testing.
Results
The bond strength were significantly different according to ANOVA F-test (F = 6.28, p < 0.01) and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Eight percent hydrofluoric acid showed higher bond strength when compared to 35% phosphoric acid etching and sandblasting by 50 micron aluminum oxide. Highest bond strength was observed with hydrofluoric acid + clearfil.
Conclusion
Etching with 8% hydrofluoric acid + clearfil liner bond showed higher bond strength when compared to hydrofluoric acid alone. This is indicative that effect of silane and etching can be use to improve mechanico chemical bonding. Among bonding agents used clearfil liner showed higher bond strength when compared to scotch bond adhesive.
Keywords: Porcelain repair, Bond strength, Composite, Bonding agents, Surface treatment, Fractured porcelain, Acid etching, Sandblasting
References
- 1.Tulunoglu I.F., Beydemir B. Resin shear bond strength to porcelain and a base metal alloy using two polymerization schemes. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(2):181–186. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)80010-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Abdul-Haq A.S., Swift E.J., Perdigao J. Effects of surface treatment and bonding agents on bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70:118–120. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90004-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bertolotti R.L., Lacy A.M., Watanble L.G. Adhesive monomer for porcelain repair. Int J Prosthodont. 1989;2:483–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Llobell A., Nicholls J.I., Kois J.C., Daly C.H. Fatique life of porcelain repair systems. Int J Prosthodont. 1992;5(3):205–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Guler A.U., Yilmaz F., Ural C. Evaluation of 24-Hour shear bond strength of resin composite to porcelain according to surface treatment. Int J Prosthodont. 2005;18(2):156–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Diaz-Arnold A.M., Schneider R.L., Aquilino S.A. Bond Strengths of intraoral porcelain repair materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61(3):305–309. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90133-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cooley R.L., Tseng E.Y., Evans J.G. Evaluation of a 4-META porcelain repair system. J Esthetic Dent. 1991;3:11–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1991.tb00798.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gregory W.A., Hagen C.A., Powers J.M. Composite resin repair of porcelain using different bonding materials. J Oper Dent. 1988;13:114–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Karson A. K., Karen M., Barkmeer W.W., Wilwerding T.M. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite - to porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:119–124. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90294-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Buonocore M.G. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34:849–583. doi: 10.1177/00220345550340060801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Prat R.C., Burgess J.O., Schwatz R.S., Smith J.H. Evaluation of bond strength of six porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:11–13. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90037-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schwartz RS, Summit JB, Robbins JW (1996) Fundamental of operative dentistry. Quintensence Publication Co Inc
- 13.Hayawaka T., Hore H., Aida M., Kanaya H., Kobayashi T., Murata Y. The influence of surface conditions and silane agents on the bond of rests to dental porcelain. Dent Mat. 1992;8:238–240. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90092-Q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jean M. P. F., Graser G.N., Tallents R.H., Jarvis R.H. Tallents and Ronald H. Jarvis. Tensile strength and microleakage of porcelain repair materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(1):44–50. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90164-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Suliman A.A., Swift E.J., Pedigao J. Effects of surface treatment and bonding agents on bond strength of composite to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70:118–120. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90004-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jensen M., Tolliver D. Effect of surface treatment on etched porcelain and strength to enamel. Dent Mat. 1988;4:328–337. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(88)80045-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Thurmond J.W., Barkmeier W.W., Wiwerding T.M. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72:355–359. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90553-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Soresen J.A., Engelman M.J., Torres T.J., Avera S.P. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthodont. 1991;4:17–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Newburg R., Pameijer C.H. Composite resins bonded to porcelain with silane solution. J Am Dent Assoc. 1978;96:288–291. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1978.0071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Aida M., Hayakawa T., Mizukawa K. Adhesion of composite to porcelain with various surface conditions. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73:464–470. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80076-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kamada K., Yoshida K., Atsuta M. Effect of ceramic surface treatments on the bond of four resin luting agents to a ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:508–513. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70170-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]