The Effect of Multiple Applications of Phosphate-Containing Primer on Shear Bond Strength between Zirconia and Resin Composite

Abstract

Occasional chipping can still occur with zirconia material despite its high strength. Emergency repairs can be accomplished using zirconia primer, adhesive agent, and resin composite when the fracture of zirconia exposes the zirconia framework. Phosphate-containing primers play an important role in zirconia surface treatment. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of multiple applications of phosphate-containing primer on shear bond strength between zirconia and resin composite. In this case, 78 zirconia discs were sandblasted by alumina particles; the zirconia was then randomized into six groups for single application and multiple applications of phosphate-containing primer according follows; group 1: no application, group 2: one application, group 3: two applications, group 4: three applications, group 5: four applications, and group 6: five applications. Adhesive was applied on the zirconia surface and the resin composite was bonded. Shear bond strength was assessed using a universal testing machine. The de-bonded surface was examined using a stereomicroscope. The shear bond strengths were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni. Group 1 had the lowest shear bond strength with a significant difference compared to groups 2–6, whereas group 4 had the highest shear bond strength, with no significant difference compared to groups 5–6. The failure mode revealed 100% adhesive failure in all groups. In conclusion, to maximize shear bond strength at zirconia and resin composite interfaces, sandblasted zirconia surfaces should be treated with three applications of phosphate-containing primer prior to the adhesive agent.

The Effect of Different Chemical Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of Resin-Matrix Ceramic Repaired with Resin Composite

“…Three patterns are used as a classification system for the fracture failure types in certain features of the shown failure mode [11][12][13][14] : (i) a pattern of adhesive failure that appears when the resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite are broken at the interface; (ii) a cohesive failure mode inside the resin-matrix ceramic that breaks; and (iii) a mixed failure mode that results from combining cohesive and adhesive failure modes. In this investigation, adhesive failure was found in all specimens in group 1 (►Fig.…”

“…The fracture mode patterns of resin-matrix ceramic and resin composites were inspected by a stereomicroscope at x50 magnification. To categorize the fracture modes, three patterns were employed [11][12][13][14] (i) an adhesive pattern (fracture on the interface between resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite), (ii) a cohesive pattern (fracture in resin-matrix ceramic or resin composite), and (iii) a mixed pattern (combined adhesive and cohesive failure patterns).…”

Effect of Anti-COVID-19 Mouthwashes on Shear Bond Strength of Resin-Matrix Ceramics Repaired with Resin Composite Using Universal Adhesive: An In Vitro Study

“…This study assessed the SBS of two types of aged RMCs after immersion in two types of anti-COVID-19 mouthwashes, followed by two procedures of surface treatments and then repairs with resin composites using universal adhesives. An SBS test was used to investigate the bond ability, which is a simple and common method used for the assessment of bond strength repairs [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Based on the difference in composition, the following two types of RMCs were used in this study: VE, a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN), and ShB, a dispersed filler resin block (resin nanoceramic) [ 37 ].…”

The Effect of Morpholine on Composite-to-Composite Repair Strength Contaminated with Saliva

“…The failure mode was modified from Matinlinna et al [ 18 ] and Klaisiri et al [ 19 ] and was categorized into three types: (1) Less than 40% of the new resin composite (or old resin composite) can be seen on the surface of the old resin composite (or new resin composite), at which point an adhesive failure has occurred. (2) When at least 60% of the new resin composite (or old resin composite) is visible on the old resin composite (or new resin composite) surface, a cohesive failure has occurred.…”