These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Bonding of glass ceramic and indirect composite to non-aged and aged resin composite.
    Author: Gresnigt M, Özcan M, Muis M, Kalk W.
    Journal: J Adhes Dent; 2012 Feb; 14(1):59-68. PubMed ID: 21594236.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Since adhesion of the restorative materials to pre-polymerized or aged resin composites presents a challenge to the clinicians, existing restorations are often removed and remade prior to cementation of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). This study evaluated bond strength of non-aged and aged resin composite to an indirect resin composite and pressed glass ceramic using two resin cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Disk-shaped specimens (diameter: 3.5, thickness: 3 mm) (N = 160) produced from a microhybrid resin composite (Quadrant Anterior Shine) were randomly divided into eight groups. While half of the specimens were kept dry at 37°C for 24 h, the other half was aged by means of thermocycling (6000 times, 5°C to 55°C). The non-aged and aged resin composites were bonded to a highly filled indirect composite (Estenia) and a pressed glass ceramic (IPS Empress II) using either a photopolymerizing (Variolink Veneer) or a dual-polymerizing (Panavia F2.0) resin cement. While cementation surfaces of both the direct and indirect composite materials were silica coated (30 µm SiO2, CoJet-Sand) and silanized (ESPE-Sil), ceramic surfaces were conditioned with hydrofluoric acid (20 s), neutralized, and silanized prior to cementation. All specimens were cemented under a load of 750 g. Shear force was applied to the adhesive interface in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure types of the specimens were identified after debonding. RESULTS: Significant effects of aging (p < 0.05), restorative material (p < 0.05), and cement type (p < 0.05) were observed on the bond strength (3-way ANOVA). Interaction terms were also significant (p < 0.05) (Tukey's test). After aging, in terms of bond strength, indirect composite and pressed glass ceramic in combination with both cements showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). Both indirect composite (24.3 ± 5.1 MPa) and glass ceramic in combination with Variolink (22 ± 9 MPa) showed the highest results on non-aged composites, but were not significantly different from one another (p > 0.05). On the aged composites, indirect composite and glass ceramic showed no significant difference in bond strength within each material group (p > 0.05), with both Panavia (17.2 ± 6 and 15 ± 5.5 MPa, respectively) and Variolink (19 ± 8, 12.8 ± 5.3 MPa, respectively), but in all groups, glass ceramic-Variolink on aged composite revealed the lowest results (12.8 ± 5.3 MPa). Among all groups, predominantly cohesive failures were observed in the indirect resin composite substrate (79 out of 80) as opposed to the ceramic (18 out of 80) (p < 0.05) (Chi square). CONCLUSION: Regardless of the resin cement type, considering the bond values and the failure types, the adhesion quality of indirect composite cemented to non-aged and aged resin composite was superior with both cements compared to that of pressed glass ceramic.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]