Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2014; 08(01): 044-052
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.126240
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks

Hanaa Zaghloul
1   Department of Fixed Prosthodontic, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Dina Wafik Elkassas
2   Department of Operative Dentistry, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Mohamed Fouad Haridy
3   Department of Operative Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the repair potential of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) ceramic and composite blocks using a silane-containing bonding agent with different repair protocols. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four discs were constructed from CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. The discs were divided into six groups according to surface pre-treatment employed; GI: Diamond stone roughening (SR), GII: SR+ silanization (SR+S), GIII: Hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), GIV: HF+ silanization (HF+S), GV: Silica coating (SC), GVI: SC+ silanization (SC+S). Silane-containing bonding agent (Single Bond Universal adhesive, 3M ESPE) was applied to the pre-treated discs. Prior to light curing, irises were cut from tygon tubes (internal diameter = 0.8 mm and height = 0.5 mm) and mounted on each treated surface. Nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) was packed into the cylinder lumen and light-cured (n = 10). The specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength testing (μ-SBS) using universal testing machine. Failure modes of the fractured specimens were analyzed using field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Eight representative discs were prepared to analyze the effect of surface treatments on surface topography using FESEM. μ-SBS results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukeys post-hoc test. Results: Three-way ANOVA results showed that the materials, surface pre-treatment protocols, and silanization step had a statistically significant effect on the mean μ-SBS values at P ≤ 0.001. For ceramic discs, the groups were ranked; GIV (24.45 ± 7.35)> GVI ((20.18 ± 2.84)> GV (7.14 ± 14)= GII (6.72 ± 1.91)=GI (6.34 ± 2.21)=GIII (5.72 ± 2.18). For composite discs, groups were ranked; GI (24.98 ± 7.69)=GVI (24.84 ± 7.00) >GII (15.85 ± 5.29) =GV (14.65 ± 4.5)= GIV (14.24 ± 2.95)≥ GIII ((9.37 ± 2.78). Conclusion: The additional silanization step cannot be omitted if the repair protocol comprises of either hydrofluoric acid etching or silica coating for both CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. However, this step can be suppressed by using silane-containing adhesive with diamond stone roughened repair protocol.

Key words:

Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing esthetic blocks - microshear bond strength - repair - scanning electron microscopy - silane
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Mörmann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F. The Cerec system: Computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz 1987; 38: 457-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Akbar JH, Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K, Eick JD. Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs. J Prosthodont 2006; 15: 155-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Reiss B. Occlusal surface design with Cerec 3D. Int J Comput Dent 2003; 6: 333-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sato K, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Relation between cavity design and marginal adaptation in a machine-milled ceramic restorative system. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 24-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Peumans M, Hikita K, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P. et al. Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. J Dent 2007; 35: 282-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Frankenberger R, Petschelt A, Krämer N. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: Clinical behavior. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 459-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Forss H, Widström E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 2004; 62: 82-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Shen C. Replacement of resin-based composite: Evaluation of cavity design, cavity depth, and shade matching. Quintessence Int 2002; 33: 273-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Turkaslan S, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. Intraoral repair of all ceramic fixed partial denture utilizing preimpregnated fiber reinforced composite. Eur J Dent 2008; 2: 63-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Blum IR, Jagger DC, Wilson NH. Defective dental restorations: To repair or not to repair?. Part 2: All-ceramics and porcelain fused to metal systems. Dent Update 2011; 38: 150-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Blum IR, Nikolinakos N, Lynch CD, Wilson NH, Millar BJ, Jagger DC. An in vitro comparison of four intra-oral ceramic repair systems. J Dent 2012; 40: 906-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez de Mondelo JM. The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 481-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Amaral R, Leite F, Bottino MA. Bond strength durability of a resin composite on a reinforced ceramic using various repair systems. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1477-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brentel AS, Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Alarça LG, Amaral R, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1323-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ozcan M. The use of chairside silica coating for different dental applications: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 469-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kukiattrakoon B, Thammasitboon K. Optimal acidulated phosphate fluoride gel etching time for surface treatment of feldspathic porcelain: On shear bond strength to resin composite. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 63-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Matinlinna JP, Vallittu PK. Bonding of resin composites to etchable ceramic surfaces-an insight review of the chemical aspects on surface conditioning. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34: 622-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: An overview. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 467-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pollington S, Fabianelli A, van Noort R. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to a novel fluorcanasite glass-ceramic following different surface treatments. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 864-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Yesilyurt C, Kusgoz A, Bayram M, Ulker M. Initial repair bond strength of a nano-filled hybrid resin: Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009; 21: 251-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Role of bonding agents in the repair of composite resin restorations. Eur J Oral Sci 2011; 119: 316-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 da Costa TR, Serrano AM, Atman AP, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Durability of composite repair using different surface treatments. J Dent 2012; 40: 513-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 575-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rodrigues Jr SA, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 442-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawaa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 2010; 26: e50-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ozcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GA, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1276-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. The effect of surface coating on the bond strength of machinable ceramics. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 749-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Immediate repair bond strengths of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled composites after different surface treatments. J Dent 2010; 38: 29-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Passos SP, Ozcan M, Vanderlei AD, Leite FP, Kimpara ET, Bottino MA. Bond strength durability of direct and indirect composite systems following surface conditioning for repair. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 443-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ozcan M, Alander P, Vallittu PK, Huysmans MC, Kalk W. Effect of three surface conditioning methods to improve bond strength of particulate filler resin composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005; 16: 21-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Investig 2009; 13: 317-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bonstein T, Garlapo D, Donarummo Jr J, Bush PJ. Evaluation of varied repair protocols applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent 2005; 7: 41-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 122-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC. et al. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites?. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 701-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar