Effect of testing methods on the bond strength of resin to zirconia-alumina ceramic: microtensile versus shear test

Abstract

This study tested the bond strength of a resin cement to a glass-infiltrated zirconia-alumina ceramic after three conditioning methods and using two test methods (shear-SBS versus microtensile-MTBS). Ceramic blocks for MTBS and ceramic disks for SBS were fabricated.Three surface conditioning (SC) methods were evaluated: (1) 110-μm Al2O3+silanization; (2) Chairside silica coating+silanization; (3) Laboratory silica coating+silanization. Following surface conditioning, the resin cement (Panavia F) was bonded to the conditioned ceramics. Although no statistically significant differences (p=0.1076) were seen between the test methods, results yielded with the different surface conditioning methods showed statistically significant differences (p<0.0001) (SC2=SC3>SC1). As for the interaction between the factors, two-way ANOVA showed that it was not statistically significant (p=0.1443). MTBS test resulted in predominantly mixed failure (85％), but SBS test resulted in exclusively adhesive failure. On the effects of different surface conditioning methods, chairside and laboratory tribochemical silica coating followed by silanization showed higher bond strength results compared to those of aluminum oxide abrasion and silanization, independent of the test method employed.

Digital veneering system enhances microtensile bond strength at zirconia coreveneer interface

“…Consequently, MTBS tests exhibit smaller coefficients of variance than the typically used shear or tensile bond strength tests 22,23) . However, MTBS test is time-consuming and technically sensitive due to the need for careful handling of fragile specimens 24) . Special care needs to be taken during specimen preparation to prevent formation of microfractures at the core-veneer interface, which would weaken bond strength and distort results.…”

Adhesion of conventional and simplified resin-based luting cements to superficial and deep dentin

“…The discrepancy in the results of these studies and those of this study could therefore be attributed to the differences in the test methods. Tensile bond strength tests tend to deliver higher results compared to shear test [44].…”

Comparison of Physicochemical Surface Conditioning Methods for Adhesion of bis-GMA Resin Cement to Particulate Filler Composite and Surface Characterization

“…Although conventional tensile tests also present some limitations, such as the difficulty of specimen alignment and the tendency for heterogeneous stress distribution at the adhesive interface, this type of test was proposed to provide information on global bond strength. On the other hand, the microtensile test allows better alignment of the specimens, and a more homogeneous distribution of stress, in addition to a more sensitive comparison or evaluation of bond performances [28]. For this reason in this study microtensile test was employed.…”

“…Previous studies using stress distribution analyses have reported that some of the bond strength tests do not appropriately stress the interfacial zone [27,28]. Shear tests have been criticized for the development of nonhomogeneous stress distributions in the bonded interface, inducing either underestimation or misinterpretation of the results, as the failure often starts in one of the substrates and not at the adhesive zone [26].…”