Performance of universal adhesives on bonding to leucite-reinforced ceramic

Abstract

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the microshear bond strength of universal bonding adhesives to leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic.MethodsLeucite-reinforced glass-ceramic blocks were polished and etched with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 1 min. The specimens were assigned to one of four groups based on their surface conditioning (n = 16): 1) NC: negative control with no further treatment; 2) SBU: Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE); 3) ABU: ALL-BOND Universal (Bisco); and 4) PC: RelyX Ceramic Primer and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive (3M ESPE) as a positive control. RelyX Ultimate resin cement (3M ESPE) was placed on the pretreated ceramic and was light cured. Eight specimens from each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the remaining eight specimens were thermocycled 10,000 times prior to microshear bond strength evaluation. The fractured surfaces were examined by stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).ResultsAfter water storage and thermocycling, the microshear bond strength values decreased in the order of PC > SBU and ABU > NC (P < 0.05). Thermocycling significantly reduced the microshear bond strength, regardless of the surface conditioning used (P < 0.05). Cohesive failure in the ceramic and mixed failure in the ceramic and resin cement were observed in the fractured specimens. The percentage of specimens with cohesive failure after 24 h of water storage was: NC (50%), SBU (75%), ABU (75%), and PC (87%). After thermocycling, the percentage of cohesive failure in NC decreased to 25%; however, yet the percentages of the other groups remained the same.ConclusionsAlthough the bond strength between resin and hydrofluoric acid-etched glass ceramic was improved when universal adhesives were used, conventional surface conditioning using a separate silane and adhesive is preferable to a simplified procedure that uses only a universal adhesive for cementation of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic.

Bond strength between composite repair and polymer‐infiltrated ceramic‐network material: Effect of different surface treatments

“…Considering the minimum tolerance for clinical application suggested by Lee et al (10‑13 MPa), the group sandblasted and treated just with the universal adhesive also had satisfactory bond strength. Agreeing with the present study, Lee et al and Kim et al found lower bond strength for the adhesive compared to silane, using ceramic materials.…”

“…The present study found the highest bond strength values for the groups treated with the silane, alone or combined to the silane‐containing adhesive, compared to the single use of silane‐containing adhesive (universal), accepting the first hypothesis. Universal adhesives were introduced to simplify the bonding protocol and, consequently, reduce the clinical time . Besides the silane already mentioned, the universal adhesive tested contains several components according to the manufacturer: MDP, BisGMA, Vitrebond Copolymer, HEMA, filler, ethanol water, and initiators.…”

“…Adhesives are wetting agent of the surface due to their low viscosity. Thus, they increase the contact area micromechanical retention …”

“…Although the bonding to PICN is not well‐mentioned in the literature, the presence of the ceramic network suggests the use of silane . The recently developed universal adhesives are an alternative to promote adhesion to resinous and ceramic surfaces, because it contains silane . Besides the silane, they contain specific carboxylic acids and/or phosphate monomers that interact with the hydroxyapatite of the dental tissue .…”

Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM materials to dentin under different adhesive strategies

“…31,32 However, previous studies reported that separate silane steps perform better than silane-containing universal adhesive, 33 especially for long-term storage 31 and thermocycling. 32,34 The success of indirect restorations depends largely on the bonding system to ensure an effective and stable bond between the restorative material and dental substrates. 35 Different bonding strategies were applied in the present study: total-etch adhesive, self-etch adhesive, and self-adhesive resin cement.…”