[صفحه اصلی ]   [Archive]  
:: صفحه اصلي :: درباره نشريه :: آخرين شماره :: تمام شماره‌ها :: جستجو :: ثبت نام :: ارسال مقاله :: تماس با ما ::
:: دوره 35، شماره 1 - ( 1-1396 ) ::
جلد 35 شماره 1 صفحات 1-8 برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Silorane and Methacrylate-Based Composites to IPS Empress 2 Ceramic with Various Surface Treatments
چکیده:   (70 مشاهده)

Objectives: Treatment of chipped or fractured porcelain with composite resin is considered as an economic treatment for minor fractures in ceramics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of methacrylate-based and silorane-based composite resin to IPS Empress 2.

Methods: Sixty IPS Empress 2 ceramic discs were fabricated and after etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, they were divided into six groups: (1) P90 primer and bonding agent + Filtek P90 composite resin; (2) Single Bond+ Filtek Z250 composite resin; (3) similar to the first group+ silane pretreatment; (4) similar to the second group+ silane pretreatment; (5) silane pretreatment+ Filtek P90 composite resin; (6) silane pretreatment+ Filtek Z250 composite resin. Each specimen was subjected to shear load until fracture occurred. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test and t-test.

Results: Regardless of the type of surface treatment, Z250 composite demonstrated significantly higher shear bond strength than P90 composite (P<0.05). Group 4 showed the highest shear bond strength values with statistically significant difference with other groups while the fifth group showed the least values (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Silane coating along with the application of adhesive system and etching in methacrylate-based composite was the most efficient surface treatment in terms of bond strength

متن کامل [PDF 250 kb]   (51 دریافت)    
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي | موضوع مقاله: تخصصي
دریافت: ۱۳۹۵/۷/۲۷ | پذیرش: ۱۳۹۵/۱۲/۹ | انتشار: ۱۳۹۶/۴/۱۲

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Silorane and Methacrylate-Based Composites to IPS Empress 2 Ceramic with Various Surface Treatments

Sahar Akbarian1 Mina Lesani*1 Fatemeh Koohpeima1

1Dept. of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

*Corresponding Author:

Lesani M.

E-mail: mina.lesani1@gmail.com

Received: 18.10.2016

Accepted: 27.02.2017

Objectives: Treatment of chipped or fractured porcelain with composite resin is considered as an economic treatment for minor fractures in ceramics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of methacrylate-based and silorane-based composite resin to IPS Empress 2.

Methods: Sixty IPS Empress 2 ceramic discs were fabricated and after etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, they were divided into six groups: (1) P90 primer and bonding agent + Filtek P90 composite resin; (2) Single Bond+ Filtek Z250 composite resin; (3) similar to the first group+ silane pretreatment; (4) similar to the second group+ silane pretreatment; (5) silane pretreatment+ Filtek P90 composite resin; (6) silane pretreatment+ Filtek Z250 composite resin. Each specimen was subjected to shear load until fracture occurred. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test and t-test.

Results: Regardless of the type of surface treatment, Z250 composite demonstrated significantly higher shear bond strength than P90 composite (P<0.05). Group 4 showed the highest shear bond strength values with statistically significant difference with other groups while the fifth group showed the least values (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Silane coating along with the application of adhesive system and etching in methacrylate-based composite was the most efficient surface treatment in terms of bond strength.

Key Words: Composite Resins; Dental Porcelain; Shear Strength

How to cite:

Akbarian S, Lesani M, Koohpeima F. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Silorane and Methacrylate-Based Composites to IPS Empress 2 Ceramic with Various Surface Treatments. J Dent Sch 2017; 35(1): 1-8.

Introduction

Dental ceramics are extensively used in esthetic dentistry due to their improved mechanical and physical properties (1). New high-crystalline content ceramic systems including lithium disilicate ceramics (IPS Empress 2, Ivoclar), glass infiltrated alumina and zirconia (In-Ceram, Vita) and high-density alumina or zirconia ceramic systems (Procera, Nobel Biocare, Cercon, Dentsply Ceramo; Lava, 3M-ESPE) have higher strength and esthetic properties for supporting tooth structure in metal-free restorations (2).

Despite the improvements in strength of ceramics, some of them undergo fracture as a result of occlusal overloads, fatigue or trauma (3). Direct repair of ceramic restorations without removal of the entire restoration is preferable because of less trauma to both restoration and tooth structure. Composite resins are recommended to repair dental ceramics, due to their low cost and good physical properties (4).

Achieving a strong chemical and micromechanical bond between composite resins and dental porcelain is important for a durable repair (5). A durable resin bond could be achieved by pre-treatment. Various pretreatment techniques have been suggested in order to improve bond strength such as abrasion with diamond burs, silica coating, sandblasting, airborne particle abrasion with aluminum oxide, chemical etching with hydrofluoric acid, laser treatment or combinations of these techniques (6). It has been reported that etching with hydrofluoric acid followed by the application of silane coupling agent is the most preferred surface pretreatment technique to achieve high bond strength for silica-based all-ceramic restorations (7).

Silane coupling agents are adhesion promoters that enable chemical bonding with organic surfaces such as resin materials and inorganic surfaces such as indirect glass ceramic restorations; hence, they are considered an important factor for proper silica-based ceramic repair (8).

Application of adhesive as an intermediate layer is claimed to improve bond strength of porcelain to methacrylate-based composites via increasing the surface wettability (9,10). But Hamano et al. (11) showed that using bonding agent might not increase the wettability of silorane-based composites as a result of high hydrophobicity. Thus, in this study, P90 primer was used to increase silorane-based composite’s surface energy and bonding due to its self-etching property. Moreover, it has been shown that the type of composite resin also affects the bond strength to porcelain (12). Silorane-based composite is the first commercially available composite resin containing a new silorane-based monomer, which is the result of a reaction between oxirane and siloxane molecules. The ring opening oxirane monomer provides a low volumetric polymerization shrinkage (<1%), which might generate less stress at the adhesive interface and consequently provide more efficient bond (11).

Despite many studies that investigated the bond strength of methacrylate-based composites and feldspathic ceramics with various surface treatments, there are limited studies on the bond strength of silorane-based composites to different ceramics. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of silorane and methacrylate-based composite to IPS Empress 2, employing several methods for surface treatment associated with two adhesive systems and silane application.

Methods

Table 1 show the materials used in this study. The wax patterns of 60 discs (5mm in diameter and 1 mm in height) were fabricated using a plastic mold. The wax patterns were invested and pressed into lithium disilicate-based core ceramic discs (IPS Empress 2; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The discs were embedded in acrylic resin molds (3 mm in height). The disc surfaces were sandblasted with 50µm aluminum oxide particles at 2.5 bar pressure for 13 seconds at a distance of 10 mm. All specimens were then ultrasonically cleaned in 96% isopropanol for three minutes. Then, the specimens were treated with 600-grit silicon carbide paper. In all groups, specimens were etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for two minutes. Then, the samples were rinsed thoroughly with water (10 dL/minute for 30 seconds) and subsequently dried for 15 seconds.

Table 1- Materials used in the study

Material

Composition

Filtek P90 Bonding Agent               

Copolymer, BisGMA, HEMA, water, ethanol, silane-treated silica filler initiator

Bond: Hydrophobic Dimethacrylate, phosphorylated methacrylate, TEGDMA,

silane-treated silica filler, initiators, stabilizers

Single Bond Universal

Adhesive

MDP phosphate monomer, Dimethacrylate resins, HEMA, Vitrebond copolymer

filler, ethanol, water, initiators, silane

Filtek P90 Composite

3,4 epoxycyclohexyl ethyl cyclo polydimethylsiloxane, silanized quartz, yttrium fluoride,

camphorquinone, bis3,4 epoxycyclohexyl Ethyl Phenyl Methyl Silane

Filtek Z250 Composite

Bisphenol A, polyethylene glycol diether, dimethacrylate, diurethane dimethacrylate,

bisphenol diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate, zirconia/silica,

TEGDMA

IPS Empress

Barium glass filler, mixed oxide: Ba-AL-fluorosilicate, dimethacrylate, prepolymer,

ytterbium trifluoride, highly dispersed silicon oxide, catalysts, stabilizers, pigments

Porcelain Etch and Silane

9.6% hydrofluoric acid, silane

A plastic tube was used to serve as the composite mold on the ceramic surface. Composite was applied incrementally into the rubber mold and was gradually built up to create a cylinder on disc specimen in all groups. The IPS Empress 2 specimens were randomly assigned to the following six groups (n=10):

Group 1: One layer of P90 primer and then P90 bond were applied with a micro-brush and light cured for 20 seconds with LED light curing unit with 1100mw/cm2 light intensity (Demi plus, Kerr, Orange, CA, USA). Filtek P90 composite (A2 shade; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) was placed on the ceramic disc and then light cured for 40 seconds.

Group 2: One layer of Single Bond was applied with a micro-brush and light-cured for 20 seconds. Filtek Z250 (A2 shade; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) composite was placed on the ceramic disc and then light cured for 40 seconds.

Group 3: Silane coupling agent was applied on the ceramic surface with a micro-brush, allowed one minute and was then gently blow dried. The remaining steps were the same as those in group 1.

Group 4: The samples were treated with silane as mentioned above. Then the same procedures as in group 2 were performed.

Group 5: Silane coupling agent was applied as in group 3 and then Filtek P90 composite was placed on the ceramic disc and cured for 40 seconds.

Group 6: The samples were treated with silane as mentioned above. Filtek Z250 composite was placed on the ceramic disc and then cured for 40 seconds.

Specimens in each group were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and then all specimens were placed in a thermocycler to undergo 1000 cycles between 5 and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds.

The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Zwick Roell, Ulm, Germany) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. During this procedure, the samples were held in the device until failure occurred.

All data were analyzed by SPSS 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). One-way ANOVA was applied and pairwise comparison of the means for shear bond strength was carried out using Tukey’s HSD test (P<0.05). The Student t-test was used to evaluate the correlation among the variables and outcomes.

Results

Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of shear bond strength data for different surface treatments. The highest bond strength was found for group 4 (silane+ adhesive+ Z250).  Surface treatment with silane coupling agent and P90 composite (group 5) showed the lowest bond strength.

Table 2- Shear bond strength in the groups (MPa)

Group

P90 Composite

Z250 Composite

        Pt value

Adhesive

10.32±0.37a

17.47±0.44a

<0.001

Adhesive+ silane

9.95±0.62a

23.94±0.47b

<0.001

Silane coupling agent

5.41±0.40b

17.14±0.52a

<0.001

    P* value

<0.001

<0.001

t: Student’s t-test, *: One-way ANOVA. In each column, the mean shear bond strength values with different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences (Tukey’s post hoc test)

Using one-way ANOVA in each composite group, the three surface treatments were compared. Tukey’s HSD test showed that differences between the first (adhesive+ P90) and third (adhesive+ silane+ P90) groups were insignificant (P>0.05), but bond strength values of these groups were significantly higher than that in group 5. In addition, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups 2 (adhesive+ Z250) and 6 (silane+ Z250); although group 4 showed significantly higher bond strength than other groups. The Student’s t-test showed a statistically significant difference between the two composites. Regardless of the type of treatment, Z250 composite demonstrated significantly higher shear bond strength than P90 composite.

Discussion

The clinical success of porcelain repair systems is dependent on the integrity of the chemical or micromechanical bond between porcelain and composite resin. Ceramic surface preparation is an important step in direct repair procedures (13). Etching with hydrofluoric acid is effective to improve bond strength between the porcelain and resin, which can cause porosities and enable more resin penetration into ceramic that leads to retentive bond (14).

The results of our study showed that significantly different bond strength values of composite to IPS Empress 2 can be achieved by different surface treatment methods. The fourth group, which included treatment of IPS Empress 2 with silane coating of etched surfaces, indicated the highest shear bond strength values. These results are in agreement with those of Della Bona et al, (15) and Filho et al (16). However, in those studies, the test method was different (microtensile vs. shear test). According to our study, regardless of the type of treatment, shear bond strength of Z250 was higher than that of P90 composite.

Search of the literature yielded no studies about the bond strength of silorane-based composite to ceramic. But Lien et al. (17) showed that silorane-based composite had lower bond strength to the enamel and dentin compared to methacrylate-based composite.

Although silorane based composite has low volumetric polymerization shrinkage, it seems that the difference in bond strength of composite resins is the result of structural characteristics of composites. It is known that methacrylate-based composites have more filler content compared to silorane-based composites which could cause higher bond strength (18). Less rigidity of methacrylate composites than packable silorane composites reduces contraction stresses at the porcelain-resin interface during polymerization (19). Moreover, there is a greater degree of subsurface polymerization and depth of curing in methacrylate-based composites than silorane-based composites (20). It might cause less marginal fractures or cuspal deflection (21); these factors may explain higher shear bond strength of methacrylate-based composites in comparison to silorane-based composites.

Previous studies showed that silane coupling agent significantly enhanced bond strength of feldspathic ceramics to methacrylate-based composite. Silane coupling agent seems to be a crucial factor for porcelain repair procedures by facilitating chemical adhesion in both inorganic/porcelain and organic/composite surface and increasing the ::union:: of dissimilar materials (8,22).

Lacy et al. (23) observed that when silane was not applied the composite bond strength to porcelain was relatively weak. Besides, the values were higher with etching and application of silane and adhesive system than etching and use of adhesive only (23). The results of the present study corroborate this.

The shear bond strength values of the fourth group were significantly higher than those of the second group. Panah et al. (24) reported that use of silane coupling agent prior to the application of the bonding agent enhanced the repair bond strength. This shows that the bonding agent increases the wettability of the surfaces and furthermore, silane increases the wettability of the bonding agent enabling it to infiltrate more easily into porosities of ceramic and composite. 

In this study, silane coupling agent could not increase the shear bond strength of silorane-based composite to IPS Empress 2 ceramic compared with methacrylate-based composite. Perhaps the reason is that silicon element of silane has a great affinity for compounds that contain available oxygen such as methacrylate-based composite. Reversely, silorane-based composite has less oxygen (25).

In addition, the scanning electron microscopic images of silorane-based composite in the study by Hamano et al. (11) revealed only a few areas of uncovered fillers, while almost all of the smaller fillers were covered by matrix. These results indicate that it is unlikely that silane has a significant effect on silorane-based composite bond.

Our study had some limitations to simulate the clinical situations; thus, future studies better simulating the oral environment and clinical loading conditions are required to further confirm the results of this study.

Conclusion

  1. Methacrylate-based composite had higher shear bond strength to IPS Empress 2 than silorane-based composite.
  2. The low shrinkage property of silorane-based composite does not improve its shear bond strength to IPS Empress 2.
  3. Silane coupling agents promote adhesion to methacrylate-based composites and IPS Empress 2 ceramic. However, silane could not effectively increase the shear bond strength of silorane-based composite to IPS Empress 2 ceramic.
  4. Among the assessed methods, silane coating with application of adhesive system and etching in methacrylate-based composite was the most efficient surface treatment in terms of bond strength.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Vice-Chancellor of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this research (Grant# 8794106). The authors also thank Dr. Vosoughi for statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest:None Declared”

References:

1. Horn HR. Porcelain laminate veneers bonded to etched enamel. Dent Clin North Am. 1983 Oct;27(4):671-84.

2. Giordano RA 2nd, Pelletier L, Campbell S, Pober R. Flexural strength of an infused ceramic, glass ceramic, and feldspathic porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 1995 May;73(5):411-8.

3. Swift EJ Jr, LeValley BD, Boyer DB. Evaluation of new methods for composite repair. Dent Mater. 1992 Nov;8(6):362-5.

4. Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Papacchini F, Goracci C, Cantoro A, Ferrari M, et al. The effect of different surface treatments on bond strength between leucite reinforced feldspathic ceramic and composite resin. J Dent. 2010 Jan;38(1):39-43.

5. Lee JY, Im EB. A shear bond strength of resin cements bonded to pressable porcelain with various surface treatments. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2003 Jun;41(3):379-86.

6. Saraç D, Saraç YS, Külünk S, Erkoçak A. Effect of various surface treatments on the bond strength of porcelain repair. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Jul-Aug;33(4):e120-6.

7. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Mar;89(3):268-74.

8. Zaghloul H, Elkassas DW, Haridy MF. Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks. Eur J Dent. 2014 Jan;8(1):44-52.

9. 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 Aug;21(4):251-60.

10. Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Role of bonding agents in the repair of composite resin restorations. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011 Aug;119(4):316-22.

11. Hamano N, Ino S, Fukuyama T, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Repair of silorane-based composites: microtensile bond strength of silorane-based composites repaired with methacrylate-based composites. Dent Mater. 2013 Sep;32(5):695-701.

12. Lutz F, Philips RW. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Oct;50(4):480-8.

13. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ. Microstructure, composition, and etching topography of dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Mar-Apr;15(2):159-67.

14. Osorio E,  Aguilera FS, Osorio R,  García-Godoy F,  Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA, Toledano M. Determining efficacy of monitoring devices on ceramic bond to resin composite. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Sep;17(5):e833-40.

15. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Dent Mater. 2003 Dec;19(8):693-9.

16. Filho AMVieira LCAraújo EMonteiro Júnior S. Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength. J Prosthodont. 2004 Mar;13(1):28-35.

17. Lien W, Vanderwalle KS. Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater. 2010 Apr;26(4):337-44.

18. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK. Effect of filler content of light-cured composites on bond strength to bovine dentine. J Dent. 1991 Oct;19(5):301-3.

19. Khosla M, Malhotra N, Mala K. An in vitro evaluation of shear bond strength of silorane and bis-GMA resin-based composite using different curing units. J Cons Dent. 2012 Jul;15(3):278-82.

20. Guiraldo RD, Consani S, Consani RL, Berger SB, Mendes WB, Sinhoreti MA, et al. Comparison of silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins on the curing light transmission. Braz Dent J. 2010;21(6):538-42.

21. Kim JS, Choi YH, Cho BH, Son HH, Lee IB, Um CM, et al. Effect of light-cure time of adhesive resin on the thickness of the oxygen-inhibited layer and the microtensile bond strength to dentin. J Biomed Master Res B Appl Biomater. 2006 Jul;78(1):115-23.

22. Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Master. 2012 May;28(5):467-77.

23. Lacy AM, La Luz J, Watanabe LG, Dellinges M. Effect of porcelain surface treatment on the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Sep;60(3):288-91.

24. Panah FG, Rezai SM, Ahmadian L. The Influence of ceramic surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength of composite resin to IPS Empress 2. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Jul;17(5):409-14.

25. Weinhold F, West R. Hyperconjugative interactions in permethylated siloxanes and ethers: the nature of the sio bond. J Am Chem Soc 2013 Apr;135(15):5762-7.


ارسال نظر درباره این مقاله
نام کاربری یا پست الکترونیک شما:

کد امنیتی را در کادر بنویسید >



XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Akbarian S, Lesani M, Koohpeima F. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Silorane and Methacrylate-Based Composites to IPS Empress 2 Ceramic with Various Surface Treatments. J Dent Sch. 2017; 35 (1) :1-8
URL: http://jds.sbmu.ac.ir/article-1-1570-fa.html
Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Silorane and Methacrylate-Based Composites to IPS Empress 2 Ceramic with Various Surface Treatments. مجله دانشکده دندانپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی. 1396; 35 (1) :1-8

URL: http://jds.sbmu.ac.ir/article-1-1570-fa.html

دوره 35، شماره 1 - ( 1-1396 ) برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
مجله دانشکده دندانپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی Shahid Beheshti University Dental Journal
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.049 seconds with 789 queries by yektaweb 3430