Comparative Study of Shear Bond Strength between Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Restoration and Three Resin Cements
Objective: To compare shear bond strength of a new resin cement (RelyX™ Ultimate) on two resin cements (Multilink® N and Nexus 3) to lithium disilicate glass ceramic.
Materials and Methods: Sixty cylindrical glass ceramics (IPS e.max press) were fabricated in 4 mm diameter and 3 mm height and surface treated with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s. They were randomly divided into four groups (n=15) by type of silane coupling agent and resin cement: group 1 Monobond N + Multilink® N (MM), group 2 Silane primer + Nexus 3 (SN), group 3 Single bond universal + RelyX™ Ultimate (SR) and group 4 Monobond N + RelyX™ Ultimate (MR) and light curing 40 s. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h and then loaded in the Universal Testing Machine for shear bond strength test. Statistical analysis of the mean shear bond strength were performed by One-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test (p<0.05). The failure mode was investigated under Inverted Phase Contrast Microscope.
Results: The mean shear bond strength of MR group was highest (164.40 ± 45.25 MPa) and SR group (160.26 ± 55.04 MPa), but not significant different from SN group (147.92 ± 39.03 MPa). The mean shear bond strength of MM group was lowest (105.26 ± 38.37 MPa) and significantly lower than MR and SR group but not significant different from SN group. The failure mode mostly demanstrated mixed failure.
Conclusion: The bond strength between lithium disilicate glass ceramic to RelyX™ Ultimate resin cement that treated with both of Single bond universal and silane coupling agent were not different from Nexus 3 resin cement but was higher bond strength than Multilink® N resin cement.
1. Keneth JA. Dental ceramics. Phillip’s Science of Dental Material Vol.11th Edition. 2003; 655-715.
2. Denry IL. All ceramic restoration. Contemporary fixed Prosthodontics 2000; 643-672.
3. Giodano RA. Dental ceramic restorative system. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996; 17: 779-782.
4. Van Dijken JW. All-ceramic restorations: classification and clinical evaluations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999; 20: 1115-1124.
5. Sorensen JA. The IPS Empress 2 System: Defining the Possibilities. QDT 1999; 2: 153-163.
6. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 3757-3785.
7. Thong-ngarm W, Boonsiri I, Arunpraditkul S. Consideration factors for post and core with crown restorations. CM Dent J 2011; 32: 15-28.
8. Jardel V, Degrange M, Picaerd B, Derrien G. Correlation of topography to bond strength of etched ceramic. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 59- 64.
9. Pegoraro TA, da Silva NR, Carvalho RM. Cements for use in esthetic dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51: 453-471.
10. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 454-458.
11. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-235.
12. Stewart GP, Jain P, Hodges J. Shear bond strength of resin cements to both ceramic and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88: 277-284.
13. Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, Bottino MA. Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96: 412-417.
14. Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2014; 30: e147-162.
15. ISO TS 11405:2003, Dental materials-Testing of adhesion to tooth structure.
16. Schreiner RF, Chappell RP, Glaros AG, Eick JD. Microtensile testing of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 194-201.
17. Zhang X, Chai ZG, Wang H, Wang YJ, Chen JH. Influence of different adherend materials and combinations on in vitro shear bond strength. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 622-627.
18. Sabatini C, Patel M, D’Silva E. In vitro shear bond strength of three self-adhesive resin cements and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement to various prosthodontic substrates. Oper Dent 2013; 38: 186-196.
19. Fleming GJ, El-Lakwah SF, Harris JJ, Marquis PM. The influence of interfacial surface roughness on bilayered ceramic specimen performance. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 142-149.
20. Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Flury S. Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 266-273.
21. Toman M, Toksavul S, Akin A. Bond strength of
all-ceramics to tooth structure: using new luting
systems. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 373-378.