Shear Bond Strength of ScotchbondTM Universal Adhesive and RelyXTM Ultimate Resin Cement to Lithium-disilicate Ceramic
The propose of this study was to compare the mean shear bond strength of a universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal) and a resin cement (RelyX™ Ultimate), two self-etch resin cements (Multilink® N, Panavia™ F2.0) and a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX™ Unicem) bonded to lithium-disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max Press). Forty cylindrical lithium-disilicate ceramics were embedded into PVC molds and polished. The specimens were divided into four groups (n=10) according to type of resin cements. The specimens were surface pretreated with 5% HF acid for 20 seconds and rinsed for 60 seconds. Then silane was applied on the ceramic surfaces in Groups 1, 2 and 3 for 60 seconds according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. The specimens were bonded with resin composite rods using three resin cements, Multilink® N, Panavia™ F2.0 and RelyX™ Unicem. In Group 4, a universal adhesive was applied on the ceramic surfaces for 20 seconds instead of silane, and RelyX™ Ultimate resin cement was used to bond the specimens to resin composite. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. The shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine at a constant crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Statistical analysis of the mean shear bond strength values was performed using Oneway ANOVA and the Tukey’s multiple comparison test. No significant difference in mean shear bond strength was detected between the new universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal) and RelyX™ Ultimate (15.12±3.46 MPa) when compared with Multilink® N (14.27±2.92 MPa), Panavia™ F2.0 (14.72±3.86 MPa) and RelyX™ Unicem used with the silane coupling agent (16.90±2.68 MPa). Within the limitations of this study, the mean shear bond strength of the universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal) and the resin cement RelyX™ Ultimate on lithium-disilicate ceramic was not significantly different from those of the self-etch resin cements (Multilink® N, Panavia™ F2.0) or the self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX™ Unicem).
1. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89(3): 268-274.
2. Toman M TS, Akin A. Bond strength of all-ceramics to tooth structure: using new luting systems. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10(5): 373-378.
3. Marocho SM, Özcan M, Amaral R, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Effect of resin cement type on the microtensile bond strength to lithium disilicate ceramic and dentin using different test assemblies. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15(4): 361-368.
4. Peampring C, Sanohkan S. All-ceramic systems in esthetic dentistry: A review. M Dent J 2014; 34: 82-90.
5. Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LV, User A, Toksavul S, Vallittu PK. Shear bond strength of composite resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramics. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32(2): 128-133.
6. Zortuk M, Kilic K, Gurbulak AG, Kesim B, Uctasli S. Tensile bond strength of a lithium-disilicate pressed glass ceramic to dentin of different surface treatments. Dent Mater J 2010; 29(4): 418-424.
7. Kato H, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of etching and sandblasting on bond strength to sintered porcelain of unfilled resin. J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27(2): 103-110.
8. Özcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 2003; 19(8): 725-731.
9. Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, et al. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96(6): 412- 417.
10. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92(3): 265-273.
11. Della Bona A. Important aspects of bonding resin to dental ceramics. J Adhes Sci Technol 2009; 23(7-8): 1163-1176.
12. Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012; 28(5): 467-477.
13. Meng X, Yoshida K, Taira Y, Kamada K, Luo X. Effect of siloxane quantity and ph of silane coupling agents and contact angle of resin bonding agent on bond durability of resin cements to machinable ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13(1): 71-78.
14. Nagai T, Kawamoto Y, Kakehashi Y, Matsumura H. Adhesive bonding of a lithium disilicate ceramic material with resin-based luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32(8): 598-605.
15. Pekperdahci TTY, Özan O, Seker E. The effects of different adhesive agents on the shear bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2012; 10(2): 149-156.
16. Sirimongkolwattana S, Im-udom P, Adchariyapitak N. Resin cement: Clinical application. CM Dent J 2009; 30(1): 266-273. (In Thai)
17. Amaral M, Belli R, Cesar PF, Valandro LF, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The potential of novel primers and universal adhesives to bond to zirconia. J Dent 2014; 42(1): 90-98.
18. Alex G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015; 36(1): 15-28.
19. Kalavacharla V, Lawson N, Ramp L, Burgess J. Influence of etching protocol and silane treatment with a universal adhesive on lithium disilicate bond strength. Oper Dent 2015; 40(4): 372-378.
20. Rüttermann S FL, Raab WH, Janda R. The effect of different bonding techniques on ceramic/ resin shear bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10(3): 197-203.
21. Corazza PH, Cavalcanti SC, Queiroz JR, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Effect of post-silanization heat treatments of silanized feldspathic ceramic on adhesion to resin cement. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15(5): 473-479.
22. Azimian F, Klosa K, Kern M. Evaluation of a new universal primer for ceramics and alloys. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14(3): 275-282.
23. Isolan CP, Vallente LL, Münchow EA, et al. Bond strength of a universal bonding agent and other contemporary dental adhesives applied on enamel, dentin, composite, and porcelain. Appl Adhes Sci 2014; 2(1): 1-10.