SHEAR BOND STRENGTHS OF COMPOSITE RESIN TO PORCELAINS AMONG PORCELAIN REPAIR SYSTEMS

도재 수리시스템에 따른 도재와 복합레진의 전단결합강도

  • Kim, Kyoung-Kyu (Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University) ;
  • Shin, Sang-Wan (Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Jeong-Yeol (Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Su (Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University)
  • 김경규 (고려대학교 임상치의학대학원 고급치과보철학과) ;
  • 신상완 (고려대학교 임상치의학대학원 고급치과보철학과) ;
  • 이정렬 (고려대학교 임상치의학대학원 고급치과보철학과) ;
  • 김영수 (고려대학교 임상치의학대학원)
  • Published : 2007.08.31

Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated shear bond strengths of surface treatment porcelains with four porcelain repair systems simulating intraoral bonding of composite resin to feldspathic porcelain or pressable porcelain. Material and methods: Eighty Porcelain disks were prepared. Group A: forty disk specimens were fabricated with Feldspathic Porcelain($Omega^{(R)}900$, Vident, Menlo Park, CA, USA). Group B: forty disk specimens were fabricated with Pressable Porcelain(IPS Empress 2 ingot, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein, Germany). Each groups was divided into 4 subgroups and composite resin cylinders were bonded to specimen with one of the following four systems: Clearfil Porcelain Bond(L. Morita, Tustin, CA, USA), Ulradent Porcelain Etch. (Ultradent, Salt Lake City UT, USA), Porcelain Liner-M(Sun Medical Co., Kyoto, Japan), Cimara Kit(Voco, Germany). After surface conditioning with one of the four porcelain repair systems substrate surfaces of the specimen were examined microscopically(SEM). Shear bond strengths of specimens for each subgroup were determined with a universal testing machine (5mm/min crosshead speed) after storing them in distilled water at $37{\pm}1^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Stress at failure was measured in $MP_a$, and mode of failure was recorded. Differences among four repair systems were analyzed with two way ANOVA and Duncan test at the 95% significance level. Results: In the scanning electron photomicrograph of the treated porcelain surface, hydrofluoric acid etched group appeared the highest roughness. The shear bond strength of the phosphoric acid etched group was not significantly(p>0.05) different between feldspathic porcelain and pressable porcelain. But in no treatment and roughened with a bur group, the shear bond strength of the feldspathic porcelain was significantly higher than that of the pressable porcelain. In hydrofluoric acid etched group, the shear bond strength of the pressable porcelain was significantly higher(p<0.05). Conclusion: 1. Treatment groups showed significantly greater shear bond strengths than no treatment group(p<0.05). 2. Group with more roughened porcelain surface did not always show higher shear bond strengths. 3. In phosphoric acid etched group, there was no significant difference in shear bond strength between feldspathic porcelain and pressable porcelain(p>0.05). However in the other groups, there were significant differences in shear bond strengths between feldspathic porcelain and pressable porcelain(p<0.05).

Keywords

References

  1. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne JT Jr. Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates. J Prosthet Dent 2001:86:526-31 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.119843
  2. Ozcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs. Int J Prosthodont 2002:15:299-302
  3. Zhukovsky L, Godder B, Settembrini L, Scherer W. Repairing porcelain restorations intraorally: techniques and materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996:17,18,20,22 passim: quiz 30
  4. Chung KH, Hwang YC. Bonding strengths of porcelain repair systems with various surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent 1997:78:267-74 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70025-8
  5. Denehy G, Bouschlicher M, Vargas M. Intraoral repair of cosmetic restorations. Dent Clin North Am 1998:42:719-37
  6. Burke FJ. Repair of metal-ceramic restorations using an abrasive silica-impregnating technique: two case reports. Dent Update 2002:29:398-402 https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2002.29.8.398
  7. Kumbuloglu O, User A, Toksavul S, Vallittu PK. Intra-oral adhesive systems for ceramic repairs: a comparison. Acta Odontol Scand 2003:61:268-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350310005556
  8. Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 1996:76:119-24 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90294-2
  9. Pameijer CH, Louw NP, Fischer D. Repairing fractured porcelain: how surface preparation affects shear force resistance. J Am Dent Assoc 1996:127:203-9 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0170
  10. Lee JY, Im EB. A shear bond strength of resin cements bonded to pressable porcelain with various surface treatments. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2003:41: 379-386
  11. Kato H, Matsumura H, Tanaka T, Atsulta M. Bond strength and durability of porcelain bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:163-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90094-3
  12. Suliman AH, Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J. Effects of surface treatment and bonding agents on bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1993: 70:118-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90004-8
  13. Diaz-Arnold AM, Wistrom DW, Aquilino SA, Swift EJ Jr. Bond strengths of porcelain repair adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1993:6:291-4
  14. Berksun S, Saglam S. Shear strength of composite bonded porcelain-to-porcelain in a new repair system. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:423-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90109-0
  15. Leibrock A, Degenhart M, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G. In vitro study of the effect of thermo- and load-cycling on the bond strength of porcelain repair systems. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:130-7 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00346.x
  16. Tulunoglu IF, Beydemir B. Resin shear bond strength to porcelain and a base metal alloy using two polymerization schemes. J Prosthet Dent 2000:83:181-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)80010-4
  17. Highton RM, Caputo AA, Matyas J. Effectiveness of porcelain repair systems. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:292-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90218-X
  18. Williamson RT, Mitchell RJ, Breeding LC. The effect of fatigue on the shear bond strength of resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthodont 1993;2:115-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1993.tb00392.x
  19. Nlatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:268-74 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.50
  20. Chadwick RG, Mason AG, Sharp W. Attempted evaluation of three porcelain repair systems -what are we really testing? J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 610-5 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00283.x
  21. Stangel J, Nathanson D, Hsu C S. Shear strength of the composite bond to etched porcelain. J of Dent Res 1987:66:1460-5 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660091001
  22. Rosen H. Chairside repair of ceramometal restorations. J Can Dent Assoc 1990; 56: 1029-33
  23. Lobell A, Nicholls JI, Kois JC, Daly CH. Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems. Int J Prosthodont 1992:5:205-13