Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aim: Replacing fractured ceramometal restorations may be the best treatment option, but it is costly. Many different bonding systems are currently available to repair the fractured ceramometal restorations. This study compared the shear bond strength of composite to a base metal alloy using 4 bonding systems.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental in vitro study, fifty discs, casted in a Ni-Cr-Be base metal alloy (Silvercast, Fulldent),were ground with 120, 400 and 600 grit sandpaper and divided equally into 5 groups receiving 5 treatments for veneering. Conventional feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco2, Dentsply Ceramco) was applied on control group (PFM or group1) and the remaining metal discs were air- abraded for 15 seconds with 50 mm aluminum oxide at 45 psi and washed for 5 seconds under tap water.Then the specimens were dried by compressed air and the  groups were treated with one of the bonding systems as follows: All-Bond 2 (AB), Ceramic Primer (CP), Metal Primer II (MP) and Panavia F2 (PF). An opaque composite (Foundation opaque) followed by a hybrid composite (Gradia Direct) was placed on the treated metal surface and light cured separately. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37⁰C and thermocycled prior to shear strength testing. Fractured specimens were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was performed with one way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. P<0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

Results: Mean shear bond strengths of the groups in MPa were as follows: PFM group 38.6±2, All-Bond 2 17.06±2.85, Ceramic Primer 14.72±1.2, Metal Primer II 19.04±2.2 and Panavia F2 21.37±2.1. PFM group exhibited the highest mean shear bond strength and Ceramic Primer showed the lowest. Tukey's HSD test revealed the mean bond strength of the PFM group to be significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.001). The data for the PF group was significantly higher than AB and CP groups (P<0.05) and the shear bond strength of the MP group was higher than CP group, but was not significantly different from AB (P>0.05).

Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the most reliable treatment for fractured metal-ceramic restorations would be the replacement of the restoration. If this is not possible, adhesive resin cements containing filler and phosphate-based monomers (especially MDP) such as Panavia F2 could be recommended for bonding composite to base metal alloys.

Background and Aim: Various studies have shown that reliable bond at the root - post - core interfaces are critical for the clinical success of post - retained restorations. Severe stress concentration at post - cement interface increases post debonding from the root. To form a bonded unit that reduces the risk of fracture, it is important to optimize the adhesion. Therefore, some post surface treatments have been proposed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of various surface treatments of tooth - colored posts on the bonding of resin cement.

Materials and Methods: In this interventional study, 144 tooth colored posts were used in 18 groups (8 samples in each group). The posts included quartz fiber (Matchpost), glass fiber (Glassix), and zirconia ceramic (Cosmopost) and the resin cement was Panavia F 2.0. The posts received the following surface treatments: 1- No surface treatment (control group), 2- Etching with HF and silane, 3- Sandblasting with Cojet sand, 4- Sandblasting with Cojet sand and application of silane, 5- Sandblasting with alumina particles, 6- Sandblasting with alumina particles and application of silane. Then, posts were cemented into acrylic molds with Panavia F 2.0 resin cement. The specimens were placed in water for 2 days and debonded in pull - out test. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA followed by Tamhane and Tukey HSD. Failure modes were observed under a stereomicroscope (10 ). P<0.05 was considered as the significant level.

Results: Surface treatments (sandblasting with Cojet and alumina particles ,with or without silane) resulted in improved bond strength of resin cement to glass fiber post (Glassix) and zirconia ceramic (Cosmopost) [p<0/05], but not to the quartz fiber post (Matchpost). In general, higher bond strengths resulted in a to higher percentage of cohesive failures within the cement.

Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, sandblasting with cojet and alumina particles increases bond strength of resin cement to glass fiber post (Glassix) and zirconia ceramic (Cosmopost).Generally, the bond strength of resin cement to the posts is affected by the post's composition and surface treatment.

  Background and Aims: Indirect composites are designed to overcome the shortcomings of direct composites such as polymerization shrinkage and low degree of conversion. But, good adhesion of resin cements to indirect composites is still difficult. This research was designed to assess the effect of different powers of ErYAG laser compared with sandblasting. On the micro tensil bond strength of resin cement to indirect composites.

  Materials and Methods: Specimens were prepred using dental resin composite (Gradia GC) and metallic mold (15×5×5 mm) and were cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions. 24 blocks were prepared and randomly divided into 12 groups. G1:no treatment (as control), G 2-6: Er YAG laser irradiation (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Watt), G7: sandblast. Two composite blocks were bonded to each other with Panavia F.2. resin cement. The cylindrical sections with dimensions of 1 mm were tested in a microtensile bond strength tester device using 0.5 mm/min speed until fracture points. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and T-test.

  Results: Interaction between lasers irradiation and sandblast treatments were significant (P<0.05). Thus, T-test was used for comparing laser groups. T-test showed that when using laser with energies less than 150 mJ, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) whether samples were sandblasted or not. Samples which received 300 mJ of laser showed lower bond strength compared with no laser treatment. Other groups showed no significant difference (P>0.05).

  Conclusion: It seems that application of sandblast with proper variables, is a good way to improve bond strength.
Laser application had no influence in improving the bond strength between the indirect composite and resin cement.