Effect of Repressing Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics on The Shear Bond Strength of Resin Cements

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of repeated pressing of lithium disilicate ceramic on the shear bond strength (SBS) of three types of resin cement. Methodology: A lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max® Press) was first heat-pressed to form rectangular disk specimens. Then, leftovers were used for the second and third presses. A total of 90 specimens were prepared and separated, according to the number of pressing cycles, into three groups: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd presses (n = 30). Each group was further subdivided into three groups (n = 10) according to the type of resin cement used, as follows: Multilink N (MN), Variolink Esthetic DC (VDC), and Variolink Esthetic LC (VLC). All the cement was bonded to the ceramic surface, which was etched with hydrofluoric acid and primed with Monobond Plus. All samples were light-cured and stored for 24 h. Shear bond strength was tested on a universal testing machine. Results: A two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the influence of repeated pressing cycles and cement type as well as their interaction. The results indicated that cement type has a significant impact (p < 0.001) but not the number of pressing cycles (p = 0.970) or their interaction (p = 0.836). The Bonferroni post-hoc test showed that the SBS of MN was significantly higher than that of VDC and VLC in the first press and second press cycles, respectively. The SBS of MN was significantly higher than that of VDC and VLC cements in the third pressing cycle. There was no significant difference in the SBS between VLC and VDC in all three pressing cycles. Conclusion: The results of the current study did not report a detrimental effect of repeated pressing up to three cycles on the shear bond strength of the IPS e.max® Press. Multilink resin cement showed the highest SBS to IPS e.max® Press at the third pressing cycle. For all types of cement and heat pressing cycles, the majority of cement failures were adhesive. No cohesive failures occurred in any of the tested resin cements, regardless of the cement type or the number of heat pressing cycles tested.

Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strengths Between Dual Cure Resin Cement and Light Cure Resin Cement in Root Surface Indirect Restorations: An In Vitro Analysis Study

“…A study by Abu Haimed et al [12], stated that there was a statistical difference in the bond strength with different resin cements against the pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramics regardless of the number of pressing cycles. The type of resin cements affected the shear bond strength of the pressable ceramics, which is in contradiction to the current study where there was no statistically significant difference found between the bond strength of the two groups.…”

“…Clinical tests show that the binding around porcelain veneer borders weakens, especially in the cervical areas of the anterior teeth. Not only may such debonding cause visual problems, but it could also cause secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, and plaque development [10][11][12]. Furthermore, many patients seek treatment with veneers for periodontal diseases, which can lead to gingival recessions and exposed root surfaces in the area of the anterior teeth.…”

SEM Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation E-Max Crowns Manufactured by Printing-Pressed and Milling

“…Lithium disilicate crystals (LD), as a widely used glass ceramic material, are inserted into a ceramic matrix consisting of quartz, lithium dioxide, alumina, phosphorus oxide, potassium oxide, and other oxide substitutes [1]. It is known to be one of the best versatile metal-free alternatives among the all-ceramic types, being applied both for anterior and posterior purposes [2].…”