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

Peumans, M.; Hikita, K.; De Munck, J.; Van Landuyt, K.; Poitevin, A.; Lambrechts, P.; Van Meerbeek, B.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2006.09.006

« Previous Next »Journal of Dentistry
Volume 35, Issue 4 , Pages 282-288, April 2007

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

M. Peumans
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 33 27 44; fax: +32 16 33 27 52.
K. Hikita
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Institute of Medical Science, Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, 2-5 Ainosato, Kita-ku, Sapporo 002-8072, Japan
J. De Munck
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
K. Van Landuyt
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
A. Poitevin
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
P. Lambrechts
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
B. Van Meerbeek
- Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Received 29 June 2006; received in revised form 31 August 2006; accepted 19 September 2006.

Abstract

Objectives

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

Methods

Ceramic specimens of two different sizes (6mm×8mm×3 mm; 13mm×8mm×4mm) were fabricated from ProCAD ceramic blocs (Ivoclar-Vivadent) with a low-speed diamond saw. The ceramic blocks were divided into seven groups and submitted to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: etching with 37% H₃PO₄; group 3: etching with 37% H₃PO₄+silane; group 4: etching with 37% H₃PO₄+silane+adhesive resin; group 5: etching with 4.9% HF acid; group 6: etching with 4.9% HF acid+silane; group 7: etching with HF acid+silane+adhesive resin. After surface treatment, two differently sized porcelain disks were bonded together with a composite luting agent (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent). The specimens were stored for 24h in distilled water at 37°C prior to μTBS testing. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the influence of surface treatment and Scheffe multiple comparisons test determined pair-wise statistical differences (p<0.05) in μTBS between the experimental groups.

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Keywords: Adhesion, CAD–CAM ceramic, Luting resin cement, Micro-tensile bond strength, Surface treatment, Leucite-reinforced ceramic