Comparing two intraoral porcelain repair systems for shear bond strength in repaired cohesive and adhesive fractures, for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations: An in vitro study

Abstract

Aim: The objective of research was to evaluate the shear bond strength of two commercially available intraoral porcelain repair systems, Clearfil repair system (Kuraray) and P and R repair system (Shofu) for repairing cohesive and adhesive fracture in metal-ceramic restorations. Settings and Design: In vivo – comparative study. Materials and Methods: Ninety samples of Nickel–Chromium metal discs were fabricated. Each disc was veneered with 2 mm thickness of ceramic material using custom made metal jig. Samples were divided into control (Group I n = 10) and two test groups (Group II n = 40 and Group III n = 40). Adhesive and cohesive fractures were created in test group samples, Group II (Ceramic substrate or cohesive defect) and Group III (metal substrate or adhesive defect). The samples of ceramic substrate (Group II) and metal substrate (Group III) were further subdivided into A and B containing 20 samples each according to the repair material used (A; Clearfil porcelain repair system and B; P and R porcelain repair system). All specimens were subjected to a standard shear load in the UTM until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test. Statistical Analysis used: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Clearfil repair system showed significantly higher shear bond strength value (29.16 Mpa) as compared to P and R repair system (27.23 Mpa) for cohesive fractures. Whereas if compared for repairing adhesive fractures P and R repair system had significantly higher shear bond strength values (26.59 Mpa) than Clearfil repair system (25.74 Mpa). Conclusions: From the present study, it was be concluded that for cohesive fracture Clearfil repair system is a better material and for adhesive fractures P and R repair material gives better results.

effect of adhesive material and thermocycling on bond strength of intraoral repair materials on adhesive fracture in porcelain fused to metal restoration

“…This condition may be caused by post-polymerization strengthening of the adhesive in the early phase and retardation of degradation of the adhesive material. 20…”

Survival assessment of fractured porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns surface roughened by sandblasted and repaired by composite resin after in vitro thermal fatigue

“…If no abnormality occurs, then add a force of 10 N each time and continue loading for 60 s until the resin peels off, cracks occur, or the set of maximum occlusion force of 450 N is reached. 27 , 28 , 29 …”

Intraoral repair of fractured ceramics: a literature review

“…Yadav et al reported that the Clearfil TM repair method had higher SBS (29.16 Mpa) than Primer and Cera resin bond repair material for cohesive fractures, whereas the latter had higher SBS (27.23 Mpa) for adhesive fractures compared to Clearfil TM repair method in metal-ceramic restorations (Yadav, Dabas et al 2019). The retrospective analysis conducted by Gabelotto et al discussed the clinical phases of an intraoral composite resin repair and a fractographic examination of the failure reasons for the chipping of the veneering ceramic of an anterior single crown.…”