• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.85-92
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of tooth surface pre-treatment steps on shear bond strength, which is essential for understanding the adhesive cementation process. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Shear bond strengths of different cements with various tooth surface treatments (none, etching, priming, or etching and priming) on enamel and dentin of human teeth were measured using the Swiss shear test design. Three adhesives (Permaflo DC, Panavia F 2.0, and Panavia V5) and one self-adhesive cement (Panavia SA plus) were included in this study. The interface of the cement and the tooth surface with the different pre-treatments was analyzed using SEM. pH values of the cements and primers were measured. RESULTS. The highest bond strength values for all cements were achieved with etching and primer on enamel ($25.6{\pm}5.3-32.3{\pm}10.4MPa$). On dentin, etching and priming produced the highest bond strength values for all cements ($8.6{\pm}2.9-11.7{\pm}3.5MPa$) except for Panavia V5, which achieved significantly higher bond strengths when pre-treated with primer only ($15.3{\pm}4.1MPa$). Shear bond strength values were correlated with the micro-retentive surface topography of enamel and the tag length on dentin except for Panavia V5, which revealed the highest bond strength with primer application only without etching, resulting in short but sturdy tags. CONCLUSION. The highest bond strength can be achieved for Panavia F 2.0, Permaflo DC, and Panavia SA plus when the tooth substrate is previously etched and the respective primer is applied. The new cement Panavia V5 displayed low technique-sensitivity and attained significantly higher adhesion of all tested cements to dentin when only primer was applied.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.357-364
• /
• 1996

The purpose of this study was to asses the shear bond strengths of 3 types of light-curing Glass Ionomer cement to dental amalgam with or without an intermediary agent. 60 amalgam adherent specimens were prepared and aged in water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 3 days. Before bonding, the amalgam surfaces were finished flat on 600-grit silicon carbide paper. 30 specimens among 60 were used for bonding in this condition, and the other 30 were covered with a thin layer of light-curing intermediary agent. Shear bond strengths were measured with universal testing machine (Instron, Model 4301) and statistically processed by ANOVA and t-test. On completion of bond test, the fracture surfaces were examined under light microscope so that the mode of bond failure could be assessed The results were as follows : 1. Bond strength of Fuji II LC group showed the hightest value and was followed by Vitremer, Vitrebond groups (p<0.05). 2. The bond strengths achieved without an intermediary agent were higher than those obtained with intermediary agent (p<0.05). 3. For the specimens bonded with intermediary agent, bond failures occured mostly at the agent-amalgam interface. So, the use of intermediary bonding agent was thought not recommendable at glass ionomer-amalgam interface.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.165-179
• /
• 1993

Dicor has not been prescribed routinely, in spite of many advantages, because of esthetic limitations by excessive translucency and external shading. In an attempt to solve these problems, the technique of veneering Dicor by aluminous poreclain has been used and recently Dicor Plus system was developed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compatibility between Dicor and several veneering porcelains by measuring the shear bond strength and observing the failure mode and interface appearance with SEM. Total 55 Dicor disks(10.0mm diam. X 3.0mm thickness) were fabricated by lost wax technique and divided into five groups of 11. Veneering porcelains such as Dicor Plus, Vitadur Alpha, Vitadur N, Vivodent, and Ceramco II were built up over the center of the treated Dicor surface using paper tube(5.0mm diam. X 4.0mm height) and fired according to the manufacturesr’instructions. A representative sample from each group was completely embedded in epoxy resin and crosssectioned, and remaining 50 samples were embedded in epoxy resin with the bonded area perpendicular to table base. The shear bond strengths were measured by applying the shear load parallel to Dicor surface close to the bonded area. Failure modes and interface appearances were observed using SEM at 15 and 1000 magnification respectively. The obtained results were as follows : 1. The mean shear bond strengths showed Dicor-Dicor Plus(10.53 MPa); Dicor-Vitadur Alpha(8.84 MPa); Dicor-Vitadur N(7.37 MPa); Dicor-Vivodent(4.28 MPa); Dicor-Ceramco II(0.89 MPa). 2. The shear bond strength of Dicor-CeramcoII was significantly decreased compared with Dicor-Dicor Plus(p<0.01), but had no significant difference compared with Dicor-Vivodent(p>0.01). 3. The shear bond strengths of Dicor-Vitadur Alpha and Dicor-Vitadur N were not significantly different compared with Dicor-Dicor Plus(p>0.01). 4. SEM examination of bond failure modes revealed that Dicor-Dicor plus, Dicor-Vitadur Alpha, Dicor-Vitadur N exhibited cohesive failure within Dicor and Dicor-Vivodent exhibited adhesive failure. And Dicor-Ceramco III exhibited adhesive failure and cohesive failure within CeramcoIII together. 5. SEM examination of interfaces revealed that Dicor-Dicor Plus exhibited the most tight contact and Dicor-Vitadur Alpha, Dicor-Vitadur N exhibited acceptible contacts. But Vivodent exhibited discontinuous gap and Ceramco II exhibited large continuous gap.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.21-28
• /
• 2019

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths of orthodontic bracket with Conventional primer (CP), Moisture insensitive primer (MIP), and Self-etching primer (SEP). In addition, the effect and the timing of saliva contamination on shear bond strength was evaluated. A total of 135 bovine mandibular incisors were used in the study and divided into 3 groups. Group I, II and III were used CP, MIP, SEP, respectively. Each group was then divided into three subgroups: the group without saliva contamination, the group with primer application after saliva contamination, and the group with saliva contamination after primer application. After the primer application, the metal bracket for the lower incisor was attached and the shear bond strength was measured. The mean shear bond strengths was highest with CP and lowest with SEP in dry condition. However, CP showed a significant decrease in shear bond strength in the presence of saliva contamination. MIP and SEP showed no significant decrease in shear bond strength with saliva contamination.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.396-405
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of four metal surface treatments on the shear bond strength of reline resin to Ni-Cr alloy. The denture base metal used in this study was Ni-Cr alloy(Ticonium Premium 100. Ticonium Co., U.S.A.). 120 specimens were divided into five metal surface treatments: sandblasting only, MR. BOND(Tokuyama Corp.. Japan), Cesead Opaque Primer(Kuraray Co., Japan), METALPRIMER II(GC Corp., Japan) and Super-Bond C&B(Sun Medical Co., Japan) after sandblasting. They were bonded with one of three reline resins Mild Rebaron(GC Corp., Japan), Mild Rebaron LC(GC Corp., Japan) and Meta Base M(Sun Medical Co., Japan). Then they were thermocycled 1,000 times at temperature of $4^{\circ}C$ and $60^{\circ}C$. The shear bond strengths were measured using the universal testing machine(Instron, Model 4301, England) with a cross-head speed of 2 mm/min. The results were as follows : 1. All metal primers and adhesive cement significantly improved the bond strength of reline resin to Ni-Cr alloy compared with sandblasted specimens. 2. In Mild Rebaron and Mild Rebaron LC. Cesead Opaque Primer showed the highest bond strength, but the differences among Cesead Opaque Primer, MR. BOND and METALPRIMER II were not significant. The bond strength of Cesead Opaque Primer was significantly different with that of Super-Bond C&B. 3. In Meta Base M, Super-Bond C&B showed the highest bond strength, but there was no difference between Super-Bond C&B and three metal primers. 4. There was no difference in the bond strength between Mild Rebaron and Mild Rebaron LC when metal surface was treated with the same method. 5. The bond strengths of Mild Rebaron and Mild Rebaron LC treated with Cesead Opaque Primer were higher than that of Meta Base M. The bond strengths of Mild Rebaron treated with MR. BOND and METALPRIMER II was higher than that of Meta Base M, However, there was no difference among three reline resins treated with Super-Bond C&B.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.22 no.2 s.37
• /
• pp.289-296
• /
• 1992

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths and failure sites of metal brackets bonded with chemically cured adhesive and light-cured adhesive. 10 brackets were bonded on prepared enamel surfaces with $Transbond^{circledR}$ (Unitek/3M; U.S.A.) light-cured orthodontic adhesive and another 10 brackets were bonded with $Ortho-one^{\circledR}$ (Bisco:U.S.A.) chemically cured orthodontic adhesive. 24 hours after bonding, the Instron universal testing machine was used to measure the shear bond strengths. The failure sites were examined under streoscopic microscope. The results were as follows: 1 . The mean shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded with light-cured adhesive was lower than that of metal brackets bonded with chemically cured adhesive, but the difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.05). 2. Regardless of the type of adhesives, the brackets were failed primarily at the bracket base-adhesive interface. 3. Bonding of metal brackets with light-cured adhesive is considered to be clinically acceptable.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.135-142
• /
• 2016

Purpose: The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of zirconia ceramic to composite resin. Methods: Seventy two cylinder-shape (diameter: 5 mm; height: 12 mm) blocks of experimental industrially manufactured Y-TZP ceramic were abraded with $125{\mu}m\;Al_2O_3$ particles and randomly divided into 4 groups. All the materials were categorized as group Gc(control group - composite resin veneering on zirconia surface), Gr - composite resin veneering after surface treatment of Rocatec system (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) group; Gz - composite resin veneering after surface treatment of Zirconia primer (Z-primer, Bisco, U.S.A) group; Gm - composite resin veneering after surface treatment of zirconia primer (Monobond plus, ivoclar vivadent AG, Liechtenstein) group. Two different zirconia primers and Rocatec system were used to zirconia cylinders (n=16) onto the zirconia surface. Zirconia specimens, polished and roughened, were pretreated and composite bilayer cylinders bonded using conventional adhesive techniques. Results: Shear bond strengths were analyzed using single-factor ANOVA(p<0.05). Bond strength values achieved after airbone particle abrasion and zirconia surface pre-treatments(p<0.05). Conclusion: Shear bond strength tests denmonstrated that zirconia primer is a viable method to improved bond strength between zirconia ceramic core and veneering composites.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.6-12
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength between zirconia cores and veneer ceramics as per the sand blasting and liner treatments. Methods: The following 4 groups of zirconia-veneering ceramic specimens were prepared: (1) Group I, untreated; (2) Group II, with 110 ㎛ aluminium oxide (Al2O3) sandblasting; (3) Group III, with liner (IPS e.max ZirLiner; Ivoclar Vivadent); and (4) Group IV, with 110 ㎛ Al2O3 sand blasting and liner. Surface roughness was measured for all the prepared specimens, and the surface morphology was observed using a scanning electron microscope. All the samples (n=40) were fixed with measuring jigs, and shear bond strengths were obtained using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The shear bond strength data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and t-test. The post hoc comparison was performed using the Tukey's test (α=0.05). Results: A significant difference in the surface roughness was observed between the specimens of groups I and II (p<0.05). Surface treatment with liner and sandblasting showed higher shear bond strength between zirconia core and veneering ceramic (p<0.05). Conclusion: The sand blasting and liner treatment increased the shear bond strength between zirconia core and veneering ceramic.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.33 no.5 s.100
• /
• pp.359-370
• /
• 2003

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to metal bar with chemically cured adhesive (Ortho-one, Bisco Co, USA) in various types and directions of force application. Three types of metal bracket with different bracket base configurations; Micro-Loc base(Tomy Co, Japan), Chessboard base(Daesung Co, Korea), Non-etched Foil-Mesh base(Dentaurum, Germany); were used in this study. Peel, shear, tensile bond strengths were measured by universal testing machine and compared each other. The peel force directions applied were $0^{\circ},\;15^{\circ},\;30^{\circ},\;45^{\circ},\;60^{\circ},\;75^{\circ},\;90^{\circ}$ And then, in consideration of the different surface area of the bracket bases, the bond strength Per unit area were calculated and compared. The results obtained were summarized as follows: 1. The bond strengths according to the types and the directions of the forces were greatest at the shear forces in all three bracket base configuration groups(p<0.01). 2. As the peel force direction grew higher in degree, peel bond strength decreased. The Patterns of peel bond strength change according to force direction was similar in all three bracket base configurations. The minimum bond strength was 60 degree-peel bond strengths in all three bracket base configurations. 3. In Micro-Loc base group, minimum peel bond strength$(_{60}PBS)$ was in $29\%$ level of shear bond strength and $52\%$ level of tensile bond strength. In Chessboard base group, $_{60}PBS$ was in $34\%$ level of shear bond strength and $61\%$ level of tensile bond strength. In Non-etched Foil-Mesh base group, $_{60}PBS$ was in $34\%$ level of shear bond strength and $55\%$ level of tensile bond strength. 4. The bond strengths per unit area were lowest in Non-etched Foil-Mesh base group and highest in Chessboard base group(p<0.05). However, there were no differences in shear bond strength, tensile bond strength, $75^{\circ}\;and\;90^{\circ}$ per unit area between Micro-Loc and Chessboard base groups.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.41-46
• /
• 2009

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. The poor chemical bonding of a denture base resin to cast titanium framework often introduces adhesive failure and increases microleakage. PURPOSE. This study evaluated the shear bond strengths of a heat cure denture base resin to commercially pure titanium, Ti-6Al-4V alloy and a cobalt-chromium alloy using two adhesive primers. MATERIAL AND MATHODS. Disks of commercially pure titanium, Ti-6Al-4V alloy and a cobalt-chromium alloy were cast. Specimens without the primer were also prepared and used as the controls. The shear bond strengths were measured on a screw-driven universal testing machine. RESULTS. The primers significantly(P < .05) improved the shear bond strengths of the heat cure resin to all metals. However, the specimens primed with the Alloy $primer^{(R)}$(MDP monomer) showed higher bond strength than those primed with the MR $bond^{(R)}$(MAC-10 monomer) on titanium. Only adhesive failure was observed at the metal-resin interface in the non-primed specimens, while the primed specimens showed mixed failure of adhesive and cohesive failure. CONCLUSIONS. The use of appropriate adhesive metal primers makes it possible not only to eliminate the need for surface preparation of the metal framework before applying the heat cure resins, but also reduce the need for retentive devices on the metal substructure. In particular, the Alloy $primer^{(R)}$, which contains the phosphoric acid monomer, MDP, might be clinically more acceptable for bonding a heat cure resin to titanium than a MR $bond^{(R)}$, which contains the carboxylic acid monomer, MAC-10.