Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (4): 755-761. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.04.030

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Evaluation of microtensile bond strength between resin composite and glass ceramic

Ren-tao TANG1,Xin-hai LI2,Jiang-li YU3,Lin FENG1,△(),Xue-jun GAO1   

  1. 1. Department of Cariology and Endodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
    2. Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100101, China
    3. Second Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100101, China
  • Received:2019-10-09 Online:2020-08-18 Published:2020-08-06
  • Contact: Lin FENG E-mail:1165155446@qq.com
  • Supported by:
    Beijing Natural Science Foundation(7113176)

RICH HTML

 6   

PDF (PC)

200

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to glass ceramic, and the effect of surface treatment of resin composite and thermal cycling aging on the microtensile bond strength. Methods: Rectangular blocks were made with dentin of extracted molars, resin composite or feldspathic glass ceramic respectively. The bonding surfaces of these rectangular blocks were sanded by 600-grit silicon carbide paper before luting. A self-etching resin cement was used as luting agent. The specimens were divided into groups according to the types of substrates of adhesion (dentin/glass ceramic or resin composite/glass ceramic), the way of surface treatments and whether thermal cycling aging ocurred. The dentin blocks were adhered to ceramic blocks as controls (group A1 and A2). The resin composite blocks were adhered to the ceramic blocks as experiment groups. The resin composite surfaces were treated by different ways before luting: no extra surface treatment (group B1 and B2), treated by ethyl methacrylate solution (group C1 and C2) or silane coupling agent (group D1 and D2), coarsened by 360-grit silicon carbide paper (group E1 and E2) or polished by 1 200-grit silicon carbide paper (group F1 and F2). After luting, the microtensile bond strength of the specimens were tested before (group A1-F1) or after (group A2-F2) thermal cycling aging. After microtensile bond strength test, the fracture bonding surfaces of the specimens were observed by a scanning electron microscopy to determine the type of bonding failure. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. Results: The microtensile bond strength of resin composite to glass ceramic with no extra treatment achieved high bond values before and after thermal cycling [B1 (30.02±3.85) MPa, B2 (26.83±3.14) MPa], which were statistically different from those of the control groups [A1 (20.55±4.51) MPa, A2 (12.94±0.69) MPa, P<0.05]. The microtensile bond strength between the glass ceramic and resin composite did not increase after different surface treatments of resin composite. Conclusion: The microtensile bond strength between resin composite and glass ceramic achieved as similar bond strength as that between dentin and glass ceramic and even better. Surface treatment of resin composite via methyl methacrylate solution, silane coupling agent, coarsening, or polishing did not increase the microtensile bond strength effectually.

Key words: Resin composite, Glass ceramic, Microtensile bond strength, Surface treatment

CLC Number: 

  • R783.1

Table 1

Groups of specimens"

Groups Substrates of adhesion Surface treatments of resin composite Aging treatment
A1 Dentin-ceramic
A2 Dentin-ceramic TC
B1 Resin composite-ceramic
B2 Resin composite-ceramic TC
C1 Resin composite-ceramic Ethyl methacrylate solution
C2 Resin composite-ceramic Ethyl methacrylate solution TC
D1 Resin composite-ceramic Silane coupling agent
D2 Resin composite-ceramic Silane coupling agent TC
E1 Resin composite-ceramic Coarsened by 360-grit silicon carbide paper
E2 Resin composite-ceramic Coarsened by 360-grit silicon carbide paper TC
F1 Resin composite-ceramic Polished by 1 200-grit silicon carbide paper
F2 Resin composite-ceramic Polished by 1 200-grit silicon carbide paper TC

Table 2

Microtensile bond strength for different adhesive objects (MPa, $\bar{x}±s$)"

Groups Before TC After TC F P
A1, A2 20.55±4.51 (A1) 12.94±0.69 (A2) 27.803 0.001
B1, B2 30.02±3.85 (B1) 26.83±3.14 (B2) 4.115 0.058
F 25.473 185.380
P 0.001 0.001

Table 3

Microtensile bond strength for different surface treatment (MPa, $\bar{x}±s$)"

Groups Before TC After TC F P
B1, B2 30.02±3.85 (B1) 26.83±3.14 (B2) 4.115 0.058
C1, C2 32.04±5.74 (C1) 29.48±5.29 (C2) 1.072 0.314
D1, D2 25.45±1.96 (D1) 21.66±6.92 (D2) 7.452 0.014
E1, E2 35.59±6.96 (E1) 29.97±7.69 (E2) 1.558 0.228
F1, F2 28.70±3.65 (F1) 23.80±3.77 (F2) 8.737 0.008
F 3.426 2.979
P 0.016 0.029

Figure 1

Microtensile bond strength for different adhesive objects Group A1, dentin and resin composite before thermal cycling; group A2, dentin and resin composite after thermal cycling; group B1, ceramic and resin composite before thermal cycling; group B2, ceramic and resin composite after thermal cycling. a, b, c, same letters indicated that P<0.05. MTBS, microtensile bond strength; TC, thermal cycling."

Figure 2

Microtensile bond strength between resin composite and ceramic before and after thermal cycling Group B1 and B2, no surface treatment; group C1 and C2, treatment with autopolymerizing acrylic resin; group D1 and D2, treatment with silane; group E1 and E2, roughened by 360 grit silicon carbide paper; group F1 and F2, polished by 1 200 grit silicon. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, same letters indicated that P<0.05. MTBS, microtensile bond strength; TC, thermal cycling."

Figure 3

Type of failure mode observed after microtensile bond strength testing for all samples Abbreviations as in Figure 1 and 2."

Figure 4

Mixed failure between glass ceramic and resin composite (group E1, the image on the right is partially enlarged of the box in the left)"

Figure 5

Adhesive failure between glass ceramic and resin composite (group E1, the image on the right is partially enlarged of the box in the left)"

Figure 6

Cavitation bubble on the bonding interface of silane coupling agent group (A, group D1; B, group D2)"

[1] Saygili G, Sahmali S. Effect of ceramic surface treatment on the shear bond strengths of two resin luting agents to all-ceramic materials[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2003,30(7):758-764.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01027.x pmid: 12791165
[2] Reich S, Wichmann M, Rinne H, et al. Clinical performance of large, all-ceramic CAD/CAM-generated restorations after three years: a pilot study[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2004,135(5):605-612.
[3] Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2002,15(2):122-128.
pmid: 11951800
[4] Otto T, Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series[J]. Int J Prostho-dont, 2008,21(1):53-59.
[5] Papia E, Larsson C, du Toit M, et al. Bonding between oxide ceramics and adhesive cement systems: a systematic review[J]. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2014,102(2):395-413.
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33013 pmid: 24123837
[6] Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, et al. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials[J]. Dental Mater, 2014,30(7):e147-e162.
[7] Ozcan M, Barbosa S, Melo R, et al. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions[J]. Dental Mater, 2007,23(10):1276-1282.
[8] Brendeke J, Ozcan M. Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite-composite repair bond strength[J]. J Adhes Dent, 2007,9(4):399-406.
pmid: 17847643
[9] Sharif MO, Catleugh M, Merry A, et al. Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014(2): CD005971.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009961.pub2 pmid: 25922858
[10] Melo MA, Moyses MR, Santos SG, et al. Effects of different surface treatments and accelerated artificial aging on the bond strength of composite resin repairs[J]. Braz Oral Res, 2011,25(6):485-491.
pmid: 22147227
[11] Cho SD, Rajitrangson P, Matis BA, et al. Effect of Er, Cr:YSGG laser, air abrasion, and silane application on repaired shear bond strength of composites[J]. Oper Dent, 2013,38(3):E58-E66.
doi: 10.2341/11-054-L
[12] Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NH. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite[J]. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent, 2014,6:81-87.
doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S53461 pmid: 25378952
[13] Barcellos DC, Miyazaki Santos VM, Niu L, et al. Repair of composites: Effect of laser and different surface treatments[J]. Int J Adhes Adhes, 2015,59:1-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.01.008
[14] Padipatvuthikul P, Mair LH. Bonding of composite to water aged composite with surface treatments[J]. Dent Mater, 2007,23(4):519-525.
pmid: 16765431
[15] Loomans BAC, Vivan Cardoso M, Roeters FJM, et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites?[J]. Dent Mater, 2011,27(7):701-709.
pmid: 21571359
[16] Goyal S. Silanes: Chemistry and applications[J]. J Indian Prosthodont Soc, 2006,6(1):14-18.
doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.25876
[17] Dal Piva AMDO, Tribst JPM, de Carvalho PCK, et al. Effect of surface treatments on the bond repair strength of resin composite to different artificial teeth[J]. Appl Adhes Sci, 2018,6(1):1-7.
doi: 10.1186/s40563-017-0102-z
[18] Sirin Karaarslan E, Ozsevik AS, Cebe MA, et al. Bond strength of repaired composite resins: surface treatments, adhesive systems, and composite type[J]. J Adhes Sci Technol, 2016,30(5):520-533.
doi: 10.1080/01694243.2015.1111187
[19] Alqarni D, Nakajima M, Hosaka K, et al. The repair bond strength to resin matrix in cured resin composites after water aging[J]. Dent Mater J, 2019,38(2):233-240.
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-044 pmid: 30449829
[20] Flury S, Dulla FA, Peutzfeldt A. Repair bond strength of resin composite to restorative materials after short-and long-term storage[J]. Dent Mater, 2019,35(9):1205-1213.
pmid: 31146960
[21] Monticelli F, Osorio R, Mazzitelli C, et al. Limited decalcification diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin[J]. J Dent Res, 2008,87(10):974-979.
pmid: 18809754
[22] Demunck J. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin[J]. Dent Mater, 2004,20(10):963-971.
pmid: 15501325
[23] Fukuda R, Yoshida Y, Nakayama Y, et al. Bonding efficacy of polyalkenoic acids to hydroxyapatite, enamel and dentin[J]. Biomaterials, 2003,24(11):1861-1867.
doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(02)00575-6 pmid: 12615476
[24] Al-Assaf K, Chakmakchi M, Palaghias G, et al. Interfacial characteristics of adhesive luting resins and composites with dentine[J]. Dent Mater, 2007,23(7):829-839.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.023 pmid: 16934865
[25] Reis A, Grandi V, Carlotto L, et al. Effect of smear layer thickness and acidity of self-etching solutions on early and long-term bond strength to dentin[J]. J Dentistry, 2005,33(7):549-559.
[26] Youm S, Jung K, Son S, et al. Effect of dentin pretreatment and curing mode on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2015,7(4):317-322.
doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.317 pmid: 26330979
[27] Cornelio RB, Wikant A, Mjosund H, et al. The influence of bis-EMA vs bis GMA on the degree of conversion and water susceptibility of experimental composite materials[J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 2014,72(6):440-447.
pmid: 24255958
[28] Yoon TH, Lee YK, Lim BS, et al. Degree of polymerization of resin composites by different light sources[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2002,29(12):1165-1173.
pmid: 12472853
[29] Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, et al. Unreac-ted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins[J]. J Dent Res, 1982,61(6):791-795.
pmid: 7045184
[30] Goncalves F, Kawano Y, Pfeifer C, et al. Influence of BisGMA, TEGDMA, and BisEMA contents on viscosity, conversion,and flexural strength of experimental resins and composites[J]. Eur J Oral Sci, 2009,117(4):442-446.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00636.x pmid: 19627357
[31] Imbery TA, Gray T, Delatour F, et al. Evaluation of flexural, diametral tensile, and shear bond strength of composite repairs[J]. Oper Dent, 2014,39(6):E250-E260.
doi: 10.2341/13-299-L pmid: 25084105
[32] Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Ozcan M, et al. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2004,17(2):155-164.
pmid: 15119865
[1] Qiu-ju LI,Wei-yu GONG,Yan-mei DONG. Effect of bioactive glass pretreatment on the durability of dentin bonding interface [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(5): 931-937.
[2] WANG Yue,LIANG Yu-hong. Influence of surface treatment with sodium hypochlorite solution on dentin bond strength [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(1): 105-109.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(4): 456 -458 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 125 -128 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 135 -140 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 158 -161 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 217 -220 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(1): 52 -55 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(3): 297 -301 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 599 -601 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 516 -520 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 304 -309 .
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd