Bonding Resin Cement & Glass Ceramic MTRL

DENTAL-2320; No.
of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s x x x ( 2 0 1 4 ) xxx.e1xxx.e16
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema
Review
Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials
Tian Tian a , James Kit-Hon Tsoi b , Jukka P. Matinlinna b , Michael F. Burrow a,
a
Oral Diagnosis and Polyclinics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, Hong Kong b Dental Materials Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
a r t i c l e
Article history:
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Objectives. The bonding interface of glass ceramics and resin luting cements plays an important role in the long-term durability of ceramic restorations. The purpose of this systematic review is to discuss the various factors involved with the bond between glass ceramics and resin luting cements. Methods. An electronic Pubmed, Medline and Embase search was conducted to obtain laboratory studies on resinceramic bonding published in English and Chinese between 1972 and 2012. Results and discussion. Eighty-three articles were included in this review. Various factors that have a possible impact on the bond between glass ceramics and resin cements were discussed, including ceramic type, ceramic crystal structure, resin luting cements, light curing, surface treatments, and laboratory test methodology. Conclusions. Resinceramic bonding has been improved substantially in the past few years. Hydrouoric acid (HF) etching followed by silanizaiton has become the most widely accepted surface treatment for glass ceramics. However, further studies need to be undertaken to improve surface preparations without HF because of its toxicity. Laboratory test methods are also required to better simulate the actual oral environment for more clinically compatible testing. 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Received 7 January 2013 Accepted 30 January 2014 Available online xxx Keywords: Glass ceramics Resin luting cements Laboratory tests Bonding Systematic review
Contents
1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Articles reviewed and data extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 00 00 00
Corresponding author at: Oral Diagnosis and Polyclinics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong. Tel.: +85 28590553; fax: +85 28582532. E-mail address: mfburr58@hku.hk (M.F. Burrow). 0109-5641/$ see front matter 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.017
Please cite this article in press as: Tian T, et al. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.017
DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e2
3. 4.
5.
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Resin cements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. The effect of resin cement on the ceramic-resin bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. The effect of external factors on resin cements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1. Chemical conditioning methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. Mechanical conditioning methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3. Comparison between different surface treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Laboratory methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1. Tensile and shear bond strength test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2. Microshear & microtensile bond strength test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3. Thermocycling and loadcycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4. Storage conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1.
Introduction
All-ceramic materials are well known for the esthetic ability of imitating tooth color. Recent developments in ceramic restoration fabrication techniques came about with ceramics possessing higher strength and toughness [1], making it possible for wider applications in dentistry such as veneers, inlays/onlays or dental implants [24]. Nowadays, there are increasing cases where the retention of restorations is reliant on bonding, e.g. resin-bonded bridges. Hence, the quality of bonding is of increasing importance, and is a dominant factor required for the long-term success of glass ceramic restorations. Compared with traditional cements such as polycarboxylate or glass ionomer cement, resin luting cements were introduced to aid allceramic restoration retention [5]. Resin cements not only provide stronger and more durable bonding between ceramics and teeth, but can also achieve better esthetic outcomes and maintain higher ceramic strength [6]. Ceramics in dentistry can be generally classied into oxide ceramics and glass ceramics based on the chemical composition. Oxide ceramics are dened as a group of ceramics containing not more than 15% silica with little or no glass phase [7]. They can be subclassied into aluminiumoxide/alumina ceramics, including glass-inltrated alumina ceramics, densely sintered alumina ceramic systems, and zirconium-oxide/zirconia ceramics, including glass-inltrated and densely sintered zirconia ceramic systems. Because of their stable chemical structure, oxide ceramics have signicantly improved mechanical properties [8] and can be called high strength core ceramics. However, the surface cannot be etched by hydrouoric acid (HF), which is the usual chemical means to condition the surface to obtain micro-mechanical adhesion. These oxide ceramics are known as acid-resistant ceramics [9]. Nevertheless, caution should be drawn in using such terminology as recent studies have only tested this type of ceramic with HF but not other acids. It is accepted that adhesion between ceramics and resin cements is provided by two major mechanisms:
micromechanical attachment and chemical bonding. Micromechanical attachment can be created by acid etching [10] and/or sandblasting [11], whilst a silane coupling agent provides a chemical bond [12]. Various glass ceramics differ in chemical conformation and microstructure, so it might be necessary to establish bonding procedures according to the glass ceramic type. The ceramic and resin cement bond is subjected to a complex environment in the oral cavity being inuenced by several extrinsic factors such as temperature change, saliva, daily food and drink intake, biting force and other habits. Consequently, laboratory testing should simulate these variables to enable the development of superior materials and surface preparation methods that provide long-term durable bond strengths in the oral environment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate laboratory studies investigating the resin luting cement (resin cement) bond to dental ceramics.
2.
2.1.
Materials and methods

Search strategy
A search of the Pubmed library, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library was performed on the literature available from 1972 to April 18, 2012. The keywords used were: bond, bonding, adhesive, adhesion, luting, resin cement, resin composite, luting composite, luting agent, luting resin, porcelain, ceramic, ceramics. English and Chinese papers were included in this search.
2.2.
Articles reviewed and data extraction
The included articles were independently reviewed by two reviewers. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated bonding aspects between the resin cement and glass ceramic interface in laboratory tests;
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e3
Exclusion criteria were studies on: (1) (2) (3) (4) alumina-based or zirconia-based ceramic; brackets, posts or implants; evaluating ceramic/porcelain repair systems; tooth preparation, tooth conditioning, and enamel/dentin bonding;
resin-
3.
Results
After searching and screening the database, a total of 83 articles were included. Owing to the high heterogeneity of studies regarding preparation of materials, methods of testing and outcome variables, it was not possible to analyze the data quantitatively. Articles are summarized in Section 4 concerning factors related to the ceramic-resin bond.
4.
4.1.
Discussion
Ceramics
Glass ceramics, also termed silica-based ceramics [13,14], are a group of materials that have been widely used for all-ceramic restorations since the 1970s. These can be further classied as feldspathic, leucite-reinforced, uormica glass or lithium disilicate ceramic. HF etching has a distinctive effect on the surface of these ceramics creating a uniformly porous surface [9]. This distinctive effect has made this group of glass ceramics dominate resin-bonded ceramic restoration construction and therefore glass ceramics are the focus of the present review. Despite glass ceramics exhibiting lower mechanical strength than oxide ceramics, the fracture resistance has been shown to increase with resin cementation [15,16]. One study suggested that using a relatively thin layer (approximately 100 m) of resin cement bonded to leucite-reinforced and lithium disilicate ceramics on HF treated surfaces and silanization could signicantly increase the biaxial exural strength compared with ceramics with the same surface preparations but without resin cement application [16]. Several studies have suggested that various glass ceramic types may produce different microstructures after different surface treatments, which can consequently affect the bond strength between ceramic and resin cement [1722]. It was demonstrated that a feldspathic ceramic exhibited a significantly higher shear bond strength than a leucite-reinforced ceramic when luted with the same resin cement after 20,000 thermocycles [21]. When comparing leucite-reinforced and lithium disilicate ceramic, one study [22] showed a resin cement which luted to a leucite-reinforced ceramic had a higher Vickers hardness. The authors attributed the difference to the variation of microstructure in the two ceramic types. The SEM image of HF-etched lithium disilicate glass ceramics showed a surface with a scaffold-like structure, comprising many small interlocking needle-like crystals without orientation. Further, a second crystalline phase, consisting of a lithium orthophosphate (Li3 PO4 ) of a much lower volume was also reported. On the other hand, the microstructure of HF-etched leucite-reinforced ceramic was less dense in crystal structure and characterized by single leucite crystals, without
interlocking between crystals. However, a further study showed that the microtensile bond strength was signicantly higher for lithium disilicate ceramics than leucite-reinforced ceramics with the same surface preparation [17]. It seems there is little correlation between the hardness of resin cement and the resinceramic bond strength. It is also worth noting that a single application of silane coupling agent produced the highest bond strength in the leucite-reinforced ceramic, while HF acid etching combined with silanization created the highest bond strength in the lithium disilicate ceramic. Thus, ceramic type may need different surface preparation methods for optimal adhesion, however, no further explanation was presented [17]. Another study [18] compared the microshear bond strength between two leucite-reinforced ceramics, GN-I (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and ProCADTM (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The results showed that when using the same silane application, GN-I presented a higher bond strength than ProCADTM . Nevertheless, no comparison of chemical composition or microstructure of these two materials was performed. Thus, it is unclear regarding the exact mechanism of how the surface morphology of these glass ceramics affected the resinceramic bond. The different surface morphology of ceramics may also affect adhesion. It was shown with the same unconditioned glass ceramic surface, the microtensile bond strength of RelyXTM Unicem (3M Espe AG, Seefeld, Germany) was signicantly higher than that of Multilink (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Panavia F (Kuraray Medical Inc., Tokyo, Japan). However, after HF etching and silanization of the ceramic, statistically higher microtensile bond strength values for RelyXTM Unicem and Multilink were obtained compared with Panavia F. This suggests different resin cements may have an individual bonding capability by varying surface morphology with various surface treatments [23]. Ceramic translucency has been reported to have an effect on the cured resin hardness [22,2430]. Numerous factors affect ceramic translucency, including thickness [31], crystalline structure [32], number of rings, repeated staining cycles [33,34], grain size, pigment, number, size and distribution of defects, and shade [35,36]. Results showed that increasing thickness and opacity of glass ceramics produced a statistically signicant decrease in hardness of tested resin cements [25,29,30]. Although the translucency of the ceramic may affect resin cement polymerization, it seems to have no or little effect on the bond strength between resin cement and ceramic. It was illustrated that ceramic thickness, polymerization mode, storage time, or combinations of these parameters did not inuence shear bond strength between lithium disilicate ceramics and resin cements [37].
4.2.
Resin cements
The cementation procedure also plays a signicant role in the clinical success of indirect xed restorations. The resin cement links the restoration and tooth. Resin luting cements can be classied as light-cured, self/auto-cured or dualcured based on polymerization mode, without considering the dentin pretreatment method. Since the 1970s, resin cements have been used to lute glass ceramic restorations [7]. Resin cements exhibit some clinical
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e4
advantages over other conventional luting cements, e.g. zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements. Resin cements can provide a clinically acceptable margin after fatigue testing that has been shown to minimize leakage and thus reduce the risk of caries and restoration failure [38]. Resin cements have various shades that can offer a more natural esthetic appearance compared with opaque conventional luting cements [39]. The requirement for a retentive tooth preparation is reduced for resin cements because of their adhesion properties, thus preserving healthy tooth structure [5].
4.2.1.
The effect of resin cement on the ceramic-resin bond
Resin cements exhibit a diverse bonding potential with glass ceramics. Higher shear bond strengths were obtained when using Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) or RelyX Unicem bonded to HF etched and silanized lithium disilicate ceramics after thermocycling, compared to Panavia F [40]. This result was supported by another study [23] using the same ceramics and surface treatments. That study [23] showed groups bonded with Multilink or RelyXTM Unicem had higher microtensile bond strengths than the group bonded with Panavia F in thermocycled conditions. Similar results were also found in HF-etched and a silanized feldspathic ceramic which were cemented with Noribond DC (Noritake Dental Supply, Inc., Aichi, Japan) or Variolink II exhibited signicantly higher shear bond strengths than Panavia 21 for 3 and 150 days water storage [41]. Another study using thermocycling showed Variolink II had a statistically higher shear bond strength to lithium disilicate ceramics than Panavia 21, Panavia F, RelyX Unicem and RelyX ARC groups [42]. However, in that study, the surface treatments of the ceramic-cement groups were inconsistent: Variolink II and RelyXTM ARC groups used HF acid-treatment then silanization; for Panavia 21 and Panavia F groups, phosphoric acid treatment and silanization were used, and the RelyXTM Unicem group were directly cemented without any surface treatment. Such variations in surface treatment methods may lead to bias of the results and invalidate comparisons. It seems that although Panavia is regarded as a gold standard for resin cements, it shows relatively low bond strength compared with other resin cements. Some studies explained that the poor bonding performance of Panavia F was due to the inhibition of polymerization by acidic monomers present in the cement [43]. Resin cement factors that may inuence the resinceramic bond, including curing mode, elastic modulus, color shade and the thickness have limited information available. Compared with light-cured and dual-cured resin cements, it was concluded that light activated materials performed better than dual-cured cements [29]. Other studies showed that dual-cured resin cements exhibited signicantly higher extrusion shear bond strengths with a feldspathic ceramic than the corresponding bond strengths for an auto-cured cement [44]. The elastic modulus of the luting agent seems to have little effect on the stresses in a ceramic crown. A nite element analysis study showed that when a resin cement with a higher elastic modulus was replaced with a low elastic modulus cement, the magnitude of tensile stresses in the glass ceramic did not decrease [45]. Another study observed there might be a strong positive linear relationship between the mean biaxial exural strength of the feldspathic ceramics and
the exural elastic modulus of different resin cements [46]. This indicated that the elastic modulus of resin cements may have an effect on the strengthening of ceramics. However, in that study [46], the ceramic surfaces were not conditioning, and may not reect the clinical situation. Thus, further research on the effect and relationship of resin cement elastic modulus on surface treated ceramics is needed. The shade of resin cement has little effect on the bond between either ceramic or dentin. A microtensile bond test compared two different shades of a dual-cured resin cement, Variolink II, A3 and transparent (Tr), bonded to a feldspathic ceramic. No signicant difference was found between these two shades using the same curing light and storage period (no storage and 150 days storage) [47]. The bond strength between glass ceramics and resin cements was postulated to decrease with an increase of resin cement lm thickness [48]. A nite element model experiment demonstrated that an increase of cement thickness from 10 to 180 m resulted in higher stresses developing within the resin cement. This study further investigated, and showed, a resin cement thickness less than 50 m might create a better bond to a glass ceramic compared to a lm thickness of greater than 50 m [49].
4.2.2.
The effect of external factors on resin cements
Except for resin cement there can be other inuential factors for resinceramic bonding, some external factors, such as the ceramic (which was discussed in the ceramic section) and the light curing unit, can also have an impact on the polymerization of resin cements and potentially affect the bond between a resin cement and ceramic. Three common types of light curing units are commercially available, namely quartz halogen (QTH: quartz tungsten halogen), light emitting diode (LED) and Xenon plasma arc (PAC). QTH lights are the original device commonly used to activate resin-based materials. Nevertheless, several drawbacks of QTH lights were found in the last decade, such as a limited effective working time of around 100 h [50]. The heat generated in the bulb lead to the bulb degradation and ultimately reduced polymerization capacity [51,52]. The LED system was proposed for light curing to overcome the drawbacks of the QTH. Compared with QTH lights, LED lights has the advantage such as smaller size, lighter, lower heat and noise generation, greater longevity of the output intensity and unit, and less consumption of electricity [47]. Plasma-arc curing lights are designed for high-speed polymerization which is a signicant time saving of the curing procedure, but the heat generated can be high [53]. No difference in microtensile bond strength was found between QTH and LED light-cured resin cements when studied [47]. Similar results were observed in a shear bond strength study of a resin cement to ceramic and dentin when the cement was polymerized using QTH light in standard mode and a high-powered (1100 mW/cm2 ) LED light in exponential mode. However, the shear bond strength was signicantly lower when cured using LED in the fast and pulse modes. This implies the light output energy of an LED unit may inuence the resin cement curing [51]. Further, higher hardness, were observed with an LED compared with a QTH light [54] whilst another study showed no difference between these two types
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e5
of curing unit [30]. The possible reason might be due to the different time duration of light curing. When comparing QTH light and plasma arc light units, 60-s QTH light source produced microtensile bond strength greater than those achieved with a 9-s exposure with the plasma arc light [55]. It is worth noting that the long-term duration of resinceramic bonding does not completely rely on a high degree of polymerization and cement mechanical properties. A longer and higher intensity of light exposure may enhance the polymerization of the resin cement, but it may cause more rapid shrinkage of the material which might be detrimental to the bond due to rapid stress increase. Therefore, it is important to use the curing time following the manufacturers instructions of the resin cement.
4.3.
Surface treatment
The morphology and chemical properties of the ceramic surface are very important factors for the ceramic-resin bond. These properties can be achieved by application of chemical conditioning agents and/or mechanical treatments by creating a micromechanical and/or chemical bond to the resin cement.
4.3.1. Chemical conditioning methods 4.3.1.1. Hydrouoric acid (HF) etching. Hydrouoric acid is
an aqueous solution of hydrogen uoride. It is a weak acid because its H F bonding is relatively more stable than the bonding of other strong acids (e.g. H Cl etching) [56], thus the free hydronium ion (H3 O+ ) function is not strong. HF can be used for dissolution of the ceramic glass phase surface by reacting with silicon dioxide. This increases the roughness of the ceramic surface and consequently creates a micromechanical interlock between the ceramic and resin luting cement. The reaction process is shown as: SiO2 + 4HF SiF4 (g) + 2H2 O, SiO2 + 6HF H2 SiF6 + 2H2 O (1) (2)
10% HF for 1.0 min produced the highest shear bond strength (11.66 1.91 MPa) [62]. In another study that evaluated the effect of 5% HF gel etching time on the surface of a feldspathic ceramic showed a different outcome. This study found that with an increase in etching time, the shear bond strength also increased. The highest bond strength was achieved when the ceramic surface was etched for 2 min, and beyond this etching time, a reduction of the shear bond strength was observed [61]. This phenomenon could be explained by the over-etching of the glass ceramic surface and adversely affecting strength [60]. It was shown that 16.8% HF etching for 30 s seemed to overetch the glass surface, resulting in lower bond strength than 16.8% HF etching for 5 s [67]. A very recent study showed that 4.9% HF gel treatment of a lithium disilicate ceramic for 2 min produced the highest shear bond strength [66]. Barghi et al. [64] reported that low leucite content ceramics etched with 9.5% HF gel for 1 min showed the highest shear bond strength. They further revealed that with a similar concentration of HF, the gel (9.5%) produced better bond strengths than a liquid etchant (10.0%). Moreover, ceramics with various leucite concentrations could also have an effect on the bond strength. To date, it seems that 4% and 10% HF etching for 12 min is the most acceptable etching procedure for silica-based ceramics, depending on the HF material state (gel or liquid) as well as the number, size, and distribution of the crystals in the ceramic. Some additional procedures have been attempted after the HF was rinsed off with water in order to enhance the ceramicresin bond by eliminating excess acid [68]. One study evaluated the application of a neutralizing powder on the HF etched ceramic surface. It was not a recommended procedure for surface treatments of oxide ceramics because a signicant reduction of microtensile bond strength in the neutralization group was found [68]. Another study presented a similar result in neutralization application [69]. Inasmuch as HF etch is not acting as an acid to etch the surface, such studies were erroneous in rationale and showed neutralization of the acid was pointless.
It is noteworthy that the dissolution process does not rely on the acidic property of HF, but the uoride substitution to oxygen due to electronegativity in glass that forms the Si.F glass. Thus, the term acid etch is misleading and therefore HF etching is preferred. HF has a long history in the pretreatment of silica-based ceramics before bonding. This was rst described by Horn et al. who showed a successful increase in bond strength between a thin layer of porcelain and resin by the application of HF [57,58], to obtain a tensile bond strength of 7.5 MPa [58]. From the early 1990s, further studies were carried out in order to analyze the effect of the concentration and etching time of HF on the bond strength between ceramics and resin cements [5966]. It was reported, where combinations of HF concentrations (2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, 10%, 15%) and etching times (0.5 min, 1 min, 2.5 min, 5.0 min, 7.5 min, 10 min) were examined on feldspathic ceramics, that no direct and obvious correlation was found between the etching period and etchant concentration. The best etching periods for 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, 10%, 15% HF were 5 min, 7.5 min, 10 min, 1.0 min, 0.5 min respectively. The group in which the ceramic was treated with
4.3.1.2. Substitutes of HF. Although HF can effectively

enhance the bond between ceramics and resin, it is highly corrosive, can be absorbed into the blood and bone through the skin and may even lead to cardiac arrest [70]. Hence, a number of chemicals were introduced to substitute HF, e.g. phosphoric acid, acidulated phosphate uoride and ammonium hydrogenuoride. The phosphoric acid used in dentistry is orthophosphoric acid, which is an inorganic acid with the chemical formula H3 PO4 . It is mainly used to clean the ceramic surface and create a rough surface for better bonding. However, a study showed that the application of 40% phosphoric acid for 5 s or 60 s did not show any obvious morphological change on the ceramic surface under SEM observation [67]. Obviously, the acidity is not important in the etching process, whilst the role of uoride on the atomic displacement with silicon dioxide is of greater importance. Acidulated phosphate uoride (APF) has a empirical formula NaH3 PO4 F [17]. The APF acid seems to prefer depositing on the leucite-based ceramic surface [17,71]. Ammonium biuoride (ABF) is a glass etchant with the chemical formula
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e6
NH4 HF2 . It reacts with the silica constituent of glass in the following manner: SiO2 + 4[NH4 ][HF2 ] SiF4 + 4[NH4 ]F + 2H2 O (3)
It was observed that ABF mainly attacks phase boundaries and cracks that already exist or are induced by leucite, which as a consequence, created a linear defect pattern. Such a pattern was also observed when HF was applied for a shorter time and lower concentration, which implies that ABF acts in a fashion similar to a low concentration of HF acid [71,72].
4.3.1.3. Silanization. Silane coupling agents provide a chemical bond between the resin and glass ceramic. Silanes have an inorganic group that reacts with Si OH on the ceramic surface by a condensation reaction. They also have an organic group that can chemically bond to methacrylate-based resins [7]. Silanes have to be activated by acid hydrolysis with the use of acetic acid. Several silane coupling agents are used to enhance chemical bonding between ceramics and resin composite [7375]. The most commonly used silane in dentistry for ceramicresin bonding is 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (or The abbre-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane). viations of this silane has been published as MPS, -MPTS or MTS [76]. MPS is found to enhance shear bond strength of the resinceramic compared to 3methacryloxypropylmethyldimethoxysilane (MDS) [77]. It was noted that blended silanes of 1,2-bis(trimethoxysilyl)ethane (BTS) and MPS could signicantly increase the shear bond strength between a resin and a leucite-reinforced ceramic after thermocycling [78]. Such a blended silane system was shown in a laboratory study [79] to enhance shear bond strengths between resin and zirconia, especially after thermocycling. Thus it seems blended silane systems could be a solution to enhance surface adhesion, particularly in dentistry. Silanes have been shown to reduce the contact angle and increase the wettability of the ceramic surface [80]. The silane layer is normally around 1050 nm thick. It was found that cohesive destruction of layers occurs if a successive number of silane layers are applied on the surface [81]. Thus, it is recommended that a thin silane coating on ceramic surface should occur in order to achieve satisfactory bonding. On the other hand, heat treatment of the silane is another method to reduce the silane coating thickness [7]. A signicant increase in microtensile bond strength between leucite-reinforced ceramic and resin cement occurred after drying the silane (MPS) with a 100 C warm air stream [82]. However, some studies demonstrated that heat treatment could not improve the shear bond strength of the adhesion promoter MPS between a resin cement and leucite-reinforced ceramic, but enhanced the bond performance for 3-methacryloxypropylmethyldimethoxy silane (MDS), 3-methacryloxypropyltriethoxysilane (MTES), and 3acryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (ACPS). Thus, the chemical composition of the silane primer plays a more important role than heat treatment to optimize the bond between resin and leucite-reinforced ceramics [76]. Another study showed that
heat treatment of the silane did not improve the bond strength [83]. Further, not only the silane monomer, but also the other primer ingredients can have a considerable affect on adhesion [18,77,78,80]. Experimental ceramic primers have been shown to exhibit a higher ceramic bond durability than commercial ceramic primers [78]. A signicant increase in shear bond strength between a resin and a leucite-reinforced ceramic after thermo-cycling was observed when hydrochloric acid (HCl) was added to the silane solution, in which HCl might act as an accelerator during the hydrolysis reaction of the methoxy part of the silane [78]. Thiophosphoric methacrylate (MEPS) is also recommended to blend with the silane solution since MEPS can accelerate the hydrolysis of the silane monomer and promote ceramic bonding [77]. One study discovered that when an appropriate silane application method was used on the surface of leucitereinforced ceramics, no signicant difference in the bonding effect of a pre-activated MPS-based silane solution, acetic acid and ethanol even when it was stored for up to 1 year at room temperature [84].
4.3.2. Mechanical conditioning methods 4.3.2.1. Sand blasting. It is a process to roughen the ceramic
surface by blasting with alumina (Al2 O3 ) particles. Twenty ve to 50 m alumina powder is commonly used in glass ceramics at a pressure of 0.28 MPa [85,86].
4.3.2.2. Laser irradiation. Nd:YAG and Er:YAG lasers were evaluated in a bond strength test of glass ceramics [87,88]. SEM observation revealed that the Er:YAG laser created irregular lithium disilicate crystals on the surface. The higher the laser power the greater the irregularities of the ceramic surface [88]. For feldspathic ceramics, it could be seen that the surface was randomly melted and corroded without any ssures or cracks when either an Nd:YAG or Er:YAG laser was applied to a ceramic surface [87]. (TBC) silica-coating. Tribochemical silica-coating is a sand blasting process that uses silica-coated alumina particles to coat and blast the ceramic surface, which involves blasting the powders with high pressure compressed air on to the ceramic surface. The pressurized powders generate kinetic energy that is absorbed by the surface and subsequently partially melts it. The silica-coated alumina powders are embedded into the ceramic surface and produce a surface silica layer [89]. A silane coupling agent is then applied onto the silica-coated surface. As a result, a strong chemical bond can be formed between the ceramic and resin cement. A commercial product, Rocatec System (3M-ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) was reported to be an effective surface preparation by combining tribochemical silica-coating with silanization [86]. 4.3.2.4. Pyrochemical silica-coating. This is a proprietary surface treatment that was introduced as the Silicoater system (Heraeus-Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany). The substrate is passed through a ame with the injection of a silane solution. Then, a series of pyrochemical reactions occur between 150200 C and a silicon oxide intermediate layer
4.3.2.3. Tribochemical
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e7
is produced on the ceramic surface. After the substrate is cooled to room temperature, the silane coupling agent (3methacryloyloxypropyl trimethoxysilane) is applied to the silicon oxide layer surface [90,91]. This system was rst used for enhancing the bond between resin and metal alloys. Although silicon oxide is already present in glass ceramics and this pyrochemical coating method was considered unnecessary, it was thought the deposition of a silica layer with this technique might help to improve the bond [90]. It was shown that a signicantly higher bond strength was achieved when this treatment was applied to a glass ceramic surface [86,90,92].
4.3.3.
Comparison between different surface treatments
The comparison of bond strengths of various surface treatments is listed in Table 1. It has been shown that HF etching on the ceramic can create higher surface roughness and consequently a higher bond strength than other methods [17,71,93,94]. Della Bona et al. [71] found that ceramics treated with HF showed signicantly higher tensile bond strength values than acidulated phosphate uoride and ammonium biuoride treatment while no statistically signicant difference was found between acidulated phosphate uoride and ammonium biuoride treated groups. It was also observed that higher microtensile bond strengths in leucite glass ceramics were obtained when treated with HF etching compared with phosphoric acid [95]. Similar results were shown in another study conrming that etching with HF was a more effective surface treatment than phosphoric acid [67]. HF etching on a feldspathic ceramic surface also showed a higher shear bond strength than either sandblasting or grinding alone when stored for either 24 h or 6 months [94]. Despite the common procedure for the ceramics, surface roughening preparation including grinding, sandblasting and phosphoric acid application are considered as a basic preparation process of ceramics to obtain consistent adhesion. It was reported that laser-irradiation preparation could provide similar bond strengths to glass ceramics as HF etching [85,88]. Gokce et al. [88] revealed that the Er:YAG laser with a power setting of 300 mJ exhibited the highest shear bond strength and as high as HF treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics. Thus, this laser treatment could possibly be used for surface modication. However, it was pointed out in another study [87] that the laser irradiation application with either Er:YAG or Nd:YAG laser is not adequate for ceramic bonding and it was suggested to combine laser application with HF etching. A durable resinceramic tensile bond could be obtained by appropriate silane application without the need for HF etching of the ceramic surface [84,96]. It is accepted that HF etching followed by silane coupling agent application is the typical surface treatment on glass ceramics. Such a treatment provides the highest bond strength of ceramic-resin bonding compared to any single surface preparation [83,94,9799]. Several other surface roughening methods were carried out to evaluate the effect of these treatments following silanization on ceramic bonding. It was shown in one study that when the glass ceramic surface was treated with sandblasting, polishing, HF or phosphoric acid etching, the HF etching and sandblasting groups exhibited the highest microshear bond strengths.
However, when a silane coupling agent was applied after the above treatments, no signicant difference of bond strengths among these groups was observed. This implies a silane coupling agent plays an important role in the resinceramic bond regardless which surface roughening preparation is used [67]. Nevertheless, other studies have shown that HF etching combined with silanization produced a signicantly higher shear bond strength than the application of phosphoric acid and the silane coupling agent [66,100]. The reason for the difference in these results possibly lies with the different concentration of the acid, different etching time, different ceramic and different bond tests. It was suggested that the tribochemical silicoating method combined with silanization achieves signicantly higher shear bond strengths on feldspathic ceramics compared with HF etching followed by silane coupling agent application and after thermocycling [92]. It was also suggested that tribochemical treatment followed by silanization and application of functional monomer substantially increased the bond strength of leucite-reinforced glass ceramics [86]. Some researchers have used a variety of silane coupling agents in combination with different brands of resin cements as a bonding system [19,101]. Although such variations of silane coupling agents with different resin cements might be able to generate various results, the explanation of such a combination is unclear and difcult to distinguish the bonding effects whether promoted by the silane or resin cement. A stronger bond strength was claimed to have been obtained by an additional application of an unlled resin after HF acid etching and silanization [65,96]. However, another study observed lower microshear bond strength values in ceramics bonded using an unlled resin adhesive after silane coupling agent application compared with the silane coupling agent alone, or when the silane coupling agent was mixed with the bonding agent, regardless of the ceramic surface was treated with HF or sandblasted [19]. Further, it was observed that with the use of silane coupling agent and unlled resin, the effect of etching time of HF became insignicant, probably due to the unlled resin over the silane could inltrate better into the cracks and ssures created by the HF, thus strengthening the bond [65].
4.4.
Laboratory methodology
A restoration in the oral cavity is challenged under a complex and hostile environment. It is subjected to occlusal forces that consist of shear, tensile, compressive and exural stresses. In addition, the restoration is immersed in saliva and exposed to food and beverages with various pH, chemistries and temperatures. Various laboratory tests have attempted to simulate oral conditions and accordingly predict clinical bonding performance. Nevertheless, no single laboratory test can predict the clinical resinceramic bonding capability satisfactorily. A correlation with clinical studies is necessary.
4.4.1.
Tensile and shear bond strength test
The most common tests for resinceramic bonding measurements are shear and tensile bond strength tests. A shear bond strength test is when the ceramic surface is constrained and the resin composite is subjected to a force that is parallel to the
xxx.e8
Table 1 Comparison of bond strength of different surface treatments. Authors

Chen et al. [1]
Ceramic type
a
Surface treatment
A (5%) (0 s) A (5%) (5 s) A (5%) (30 s) A (5%) (60 s) A (5%) (120 s) A (5%) (180 s) No treatment L E1 L/E1 B E2 B/E2 No treatment L E1 L + E1 (mixed) B E2 B + E2 (mixed) No treatment B + E1 B + E1/L B + E2 B + E2/L B + E3 B + E4 B + E5 B + E6 B + E7 F A G A+E H+E D+E H+E A + E1 F + E1 I + E2 A + E3 A + E4
Mean strength [MPa]

0.0 12.3 32.3 35.9 44.5 41.0 8.8 0.0 18.9 30.7 0.0 25.7 29.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 19.7 0.0 9.7 22.4 6.8 16.7 33.0 18.1 47.4 29.1 40.4 46.8 33.8 26.3 2.33 0.71 0.46 26.2 26.7 19.2 34.0 11 23 27 12 8
Test type
SBS
Storage condition
24 h, 37 C, W
Comments
Nogami et al. [2]
SBS
24 h, 37 C, W
L 4-META E1 Porcelain Liner M E2 Tokuso Ceramics Primer d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s x x x ( 2 0 1 4 ) xxx.e1xxx.e16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 h, 37 C, W,TC
Taira et al. [3]
SBS
60 min, RT, Dry; 24 h, 37 C, W E1 MDS E2 MTS E3 GC ceramic primer E4 Clearl ceramic primer E5 Tokuso ceramic primer E6 Porcelain Liner M E7 Monobond Plus L Metal primer II
Kara et al. [4]
SBS
7 d, RT, DW
Jedynakiewicz et al. [5]
a c
SBS
24 h
Ruttermann et al. [6]
SBS
24 h, dry
E1 Monobond S E2 Pyrosil Primer MP 94 E E3 experimental silane MPS E4 experimental silane MPS E5 Silane Primer
B + E5 B + E6 A + E1 F + E1 I + E2 A + E3 A + E4 B + E5 B + E6 No treatment F E F+E A A+E No treatment F E F+E A A+E F+B F + B + E1 F + B + E2 F + B + E3 F+B F + B + E1 F + B + E2 F + B + E3 No treatment A+E F+E E (stored for 15 min) + M E (stored for 2 h) + M E (stored for 1 m) + M E (stored for 6 m) + M E (stored for 1 y) + M E (stored for 15 min) + M E (stored for 2 h) + M E (stored for 1 m) + M E (stored for 6 m) + M E (stored for 1 y) + M
16 16 12 26 30 8 8 4 16 04.0 1.13.5 9.220.6 8.423.1 10.319.0 16.021.7 0 0 1.619.3 4.223.8 6.215.6 15.921.8 17.1, 18.1 21.5, 32.4 32.0, 33.8 18.1, 31.3 1.4, 11.4 23.0, 33.0 20.5, 32.2 12.5, 30.3 24.96 44.47 31.05 30.28 25.70 25.70 26.5 30.23 17.8 14.0 18.5 14.8 19.1
E6 Clearl Procelain Bond Activator mixed with SE Bond Primer TC
Stewart et al. [7]
SBS
24 h, 37 C, IS
4 resin cements for each treatment: Nexus Panavia 21 RelyX ARC Calibra
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 m, 37 C, IS
Matsumura et al. [8]
SBS
24 h, 37 C, W
24 h, 37 C, DW; TC
E1 Clapearl Bonding Agent E2 Clearl Porcelain Bond E3 Panavia Ceramic Primer 2 resin cements for each treatment: Clapearl DC Panavia 21
Brum et al. [9]
SBS
24 h, RT, dry; 24 h, 37 C, W; TC
Hooshmand et al. [10]
TBS
24 h, RT, dry
adhesive effectiveness will not deteriorate when stored for up to 1 year
24 h, boiling water
xxx.e9
xxx.e10
Table 1 (Continued) Authors

Liu et al. [11]
Ceramic type
b1
Surface treatment
B (37%) + E1 B (37%) + E2 B (37%) + E3 B (37%) + E1 B (37%) + E2 B (37%) + E3 B (37%) + E1 B (37%) + E2 B (37%) + E3 B (37%) + E1 B (37%) + E2 B (37%) + E3 A (10%) (10 s) + E A (20%) (10 s) + E A (40%) (10 s) + E A (60%) (10 s) + E A (120%) (10 s) + E A (10%) (10 s) + E + J A (20%) (10 s) + E + J A (40%) (10 s) + E + J A (60%) (10 s) + E + J A (120%) (10 s) + E + J A (9.6%) C (4.0%) E A+E C+E A (9.6%) C (4.0%) E A+E C+E A+E A+K+E A+E A+K+E A (9%) (60 s) (gel) A (4%) (60 s) (gel) A (5%) (60 s) (liquid) A (5%) (60 s) (liquid) + K A (9%) (60 s) (gel) A (4%) (60 s) (gel) A (5%) (60 s) (liquid) A (5%) (60 s) (liquid) + K
Mean strength [MPa]

16.31 16.43 20.39 21.16 19.64 23.02 12.00 13.90 12.04 13.22 15.94 16.09 19.4 22.3 22.2 17.8 15.3 17.4 21.3 21.1 24.7 20.4 9.9 0 27.2 20.6 13.6 41.7 19.1 30.1 56.1 36.9 10.2 6.8 6.1 5.0 14.4 14.3 12.7 14.2 13.9 15.5 12.4 10.6
Test type
SBS
Storage condition
No storage
Comments
b1 ProCAD b2 GN-I E1 GC Ceramic Primer E2 Clearl Ceramic Primer E3 Porcelain Liner M
b2
b1
TC
b2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Naves et al. [12]
SBS
24 h, 37 C, DW
Della Bona et al. [13]
TBS
30 d, 37 C, W
Saavedra et al. [14]
TBS
No storage MC
Amaral et al. [15]
TBS
No storage
24 h, 37 C, DW; TC
De Carvalho et al. [16]
Akyil et al. [17]
Peumans et al. [18]
A+E A+E+M E+M E No treatment A F G1 G2 F+A G1 + A G2 + A No treatment B B+E B+E+J A A+E A+E+J
17.6 19.0 9.1 10.9 8.02 17.01 14.58 5.28 6.51 9.08 12.25 11.73 12.8 19.1 27.4 34.0 37.6 34.6 34.5
TBS
7 d, 37 C, DW
ARTICLE IN PRESS
TBS
24 h, 37 C, DW; TC
G1 Er:YAG G2 Nd:YAG
TBS
24 h, 37 C, W
TBS, tensile bond strength; SBS, shear bond strength; TBS, microtensile bond strength; SBS, microshear bond strength; W; water; DW, distilled water; RT, room temperature; TC, thermocycling; MC, mechanical cycling; IS, isotonic saline solution. a, feldspathic ceramics; b, leucite reinforced ceramics; lithium disilicate ceramics. A, HF etching; B, phosphoric acid; C, acidulated phosphate uoride (APF); D, ammonium biuoride (ABF); E, silane coupling agent; F, sand blasting; G, Laser irradiation; H, tribochemical silica-coating; I, Pyrochemical silica-coating; J, unlled resin; K, HF neutralization; L: monomer; M: silane heat treatment.
xxx.e11
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e12
bonding interface. However, in reality, the experimental procedure makes it very difcult to perform a true shear bond strength test. Traditionally, a load is applied at the interface between a resin composite cylinder and the ceramic. Ideally, one method uses a loading blade that is placed as close as possible to the bonding interface and moves parallel with the bonded interface, which could then cause a localized stress concentrated at the loaded area. Another method places a wire loop close to the bonding area to theoretically reduce the stress concentration. It was demonstrated in a nite element analysis (FEA) model [102] that blade loading causes higher stress concentration at the bonding area than the wire-loop loading effect. The reason is the load is applied at one point and fewer nodes can be loaded with the blade, whilst the wire-loop surrounds the specimen to better distribute stresses. These two loading methods develop a bending moment, inducing tension and compression that consequently leads to failure [103]. Further, FEA [102] showed a non-uniform stress distribution at the bonding interface, thus deviations from a true shear force measurement occurs. Tensile bond strength tests can be performed by using ceramic specimens bonded to a substrate (tooth or resin composite), and then applying two sets of forces directed away from each other and perpendicular to the bonding interface. It is quite difcult to control the alignment of specimens, and non-uniform stress distribution across the bonding surface also occurs, but is easier to control. Della Bona et al. [104] compared the shear and tensile bond strengths between resin and ceramics by using both laboratory tests as well as FEA analysis. The tensile bond strength test provided a more uniform stress distribution at the interface whilst the shear bond strength test gave a result of cohesive strength of the substrate material which is actually an inherent property of the material but not the true bond strength. It was concluded that the tensile bond strength test seemed to be a more valid method to evaluate the bond strength than shear bond strength test. The commonly used shear and tensile bond strength tests are associated with several limitations that question the reliability of these tests in terms of accuracy and clinical relevance [8,9,18]. Uneven stress distribution causes fracture initiation from aws that occur at the interface or within the bulk of the material in areas of stress concentration. These defects, due to their random and uneven nature, cannot be controlled and thus can lead to considerable variations in test results [11].
It was noticed that the bond strength values obtained from microshear or microtensile bond strength tests are higher than corresponding macro-scale tests [106]. This can be explained by Grifths Law [107], showing larger test specimens have a higher possibility of having defects, thus decreasing the measured strength. As restorations are under a combination of different forces in the oral environment and no single laboratory test can satisfactorily predict bonding potential, therefore conducting different bond strength tests was suggested for better prediction of performance [108]. When a glass ceramic was bonded with different resin cements (Duo-link, Nexus 2, Variolink II), Duo-link showed the highest shear bond strength whilst Variolink II showed the highest tensile bond strength. Thus, different resin cements might express different bond potentials for different tests [108]. However, the failure mode was not clearly described, thus it is difcult to interpret the overall result and as failure type is an important piece of information.
4.4.3.
Thermocycling and loadcycling
4.4.2.
Microshear & microtensile bond strength test
To overcome the non-uniform stress created in conventional shear and tensile bond strength tests, microshear and microtensile bond tests were developed to improve the test methods. In principle, the microshear and microtensile bond strength tests use specimens with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm2 . Lowering the cross-sectional area leads to a greater uniformity of the stress distribution. Moreover, these tests tend to lead to less cohesive failure in the substrates and more adhesive failure at the bonding interface [17,23], which is thought to offer more accurate results for evaluating the true bonding potential between the ceramic and resin luting cement [105].
In order to better simulate the oral environment, the thermocycling and loadcycling tests can be applied to simulate the aging and fatigue. In thermal cycling, specimens are subjected to between 1000 and 100,000 cycles between 5 and 55 C [80,87,98]. In principle, thermal cycling could generate hoop stresses at the bonding interface which is caused by a mismatch in the thermal expansion coefcient between different materials [109]. Several studies showed that thermocycling could signicantly decrease the bond strength between resin cement and ceramic [110,111]. However, a recent study [112] indicated thermocycling increased the microtensile bond strength between resin cement and ceramics without considering the type of resin cement. The reason for this different result might be due to the relatively short number of cycles (6000), thus resulting in a shorter water storage and fatigue time. All these factors might lead to an increase in the degree of conversion of the resin cement and consequently generate a higher bond strength. However, in resindentin bonding thermal cycling is regarded as an inappropriate factor and there seems to be little use to include this method in dentin bonding studies [113]. At present, whether thermocycling has an effect on the ceramicresin bond is still unclear. Thus, further studies are needed to clarify this point. Load cycling (or mechanical cycling), is used much less in resinceramic bonding tests compared with other methods. An older study showed that loading with 60 N for 20 times did not decrease the bond strength between the resin cement and ceramic, however some specimens were debonded during the loading and should be have excluded in the evaluation [44]. Another study showed that specimens subjected to a load of 1,400,000 cycles showed a signicant decrease of the resinceramic bond strength [68]. Due to the paucity of studies, no conclusion can be made to determine if fatigue testing inuences the durability of the resinceramic bond.
4.4.4.
Storage conditions
The longevity of the bond between resin cement and ceramic may be inuenced by storage time and conditions that can replicate the oral environment [114]. It has been demonstrated that resin storage in water leads to hydrolytic degradation of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e13
the bond [115]. Several studies revealed a notable decrease of bond strength between resin and ceramic after water storage of 24 h to 1 year [47,93,116]. Different storage media might also play a role in bond degradation, e.g. a resin cement may exhibit greater hydrolytic degradation in ceramicresin bonding when stored in articial saliva compared with distilled water [117]. To date, most studies have mostly used distilled water as the storage medium, which may not lead to the accurate results of durability of the resinceramic bond in oral conditions. It is recommended that a longer storage time and an articial saliva storage medium should be applied in laboratory tests investigating resinceramic bonds.
5.
Conclusion
It has been realized that the bond between glass ceramics and resin cements are one of the key factors to long-term clinical success. Intense research activity has brought many contributions to the understanding on ceramicresin bonding in the past few years. Based on scientic and clinical evidence, it seems to be clear that HF etching and silanization are necessary for the surface treatment of a glass ceramic restorations. However, the optimal bonding procedure remains controversial. More research is needed to develop a substitute for HF. Improvements on resin cements are also needed. In addition, laboratory tests need to better simulate the oral environment and consequently obtain more reliable data correlated with clinical performance.
Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental. 2014.01.017.
references
[1] Ritzberger C, Apel E, Holand W, Peschke A, Rheinberger VM. Properties and clinical application of three types of dental glassceramics and ceramics for cad-cam technologies. Materials 2010;3:370013. [2] Dunne SM, Millar BJ. A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Br Dent J 1993;175:31721. [3] Frankenberger R, Petschelt A, Kramer N. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior. Oper Dent 2000;25:45965. [4] Kohal RJ, Att W, Bachle M, Butz F. Ceramic abutments and ceramic oral implants. An update. Periodontol 2000 2008;47:22443. [5] el-Mowafy O. The use of resin cements in restorative dentistry to overcome retention problems. J Can Dent Assoc 2001;67:97102. [6] Addison O, Marquis PM, Fleming GJ. Quantifying the strength of a resin-coated dental ceramic. J Dent Res 2008;87:5427. [7] Kern M. Resin bonding to oxide ceramics for dental restorations. J Adhes Sci Technol 2009;23:1097111.
[8] Rizkalla AS, Jones DW. Mechanical properties of commercial high strength ceramic core materials. Dent Mater 2004;20:20712. [9] Della Bona A, Donassollo TA, Demarco FF, Barrett AA, Mecholsky Jr JJ. Characterization and surface treatment effects on topography of a glass-inltrated alumina/zirconia-reinforced ceramic. Dent Mater 2007;23:76975. [10] Filho AM, Vieira LC, Araujo E, Monteiro Junior S. Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength. J Prosthodont 2004;13:2835. [11] Moharamzadeh K, Hooshmand T, Keshvad A, Van Noort R. Fracture toughness of a ceramicresin interface. Dent Mater 2008;24:1727. [12] Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Ozcan M, Yli-Urpo A, Vallittu PK. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:15564. [13] Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resinceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89: 26874. [14] Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012;28:46777. [15] Jensen ME, Sheth JJ, Tolliver D. Etched-porcelain resin-bonded full-veneer crowns: in vitro fracture resistance. Compendium 1989;10. p. 336338, 340331, 344337. [16] Pagniano RP, Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Wang R, Katsube N. The effect of a layer of resin luting agent on the biaxial exure strength of two all-ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:45966. [17] Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Shen C. Microtensile strength of composite bonded to hot-pressed ceramics. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:30513. [18] Liu Q, Meng XF, Ding H, Luo XP. The comparative research on resin bond strength and durability of two machinable glass ceramic. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2011;29. p. 129131, 135. [19] Meng X, Yoshida K, Atsuta M. Microshear bond strength of resin bonding systems to machinable ceramic with different surface treatments. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:18996. [20] Pollington S, Fabianelli A, van Noort R. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to a novel uorcanasite glassceramic following different surface treatments. Dent Mater 2010;26:86472. [21] Kamada K, Yoshida K, Taira Y, Sawase T, Atsuta M. Shear bond strengths of four resin bonding systems to two silica-based machinable ceramic materials. Dent Mater J 2006;25:6215. [22] Ilie N, Hickel R. Correlation between ceramics translucency and polymerization efciency through ceramics. Dent Mater 2008;24:90814. [23] Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Valandro LF, Gutierrez-Aceves G, Bolanos-Carmona MV, Del Castillo-Salmeron R, et al. Inuence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:4127. [24] Kilinc E, Antonson SA, Hardigan PC, Kesercioglu A. The effect of ceramic restoration shade and thickness on the polymerization of light- and dual-cure resin cements. Oper Dent 2011;36:6619. [25] Zhang X, Wang F. Hardness of resin cement cured under different thickness of lithium disilicate-based ceramic. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:37627. [26] Koch A, Kroeger M, Hartung M, Manetsberger I, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, et al. Inuence of ceramic translucency on curing efcacy of different light-curing units. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:44962.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e14
[27] Jung H, Friedl KH, Hiller KA, Furch H, Bernhart S, Schmalz G. Polymerization efciency of different photocuring units through ceramic discs. Oper Dent 2006;31:6877. [28] Rasetto FH, Driscoll CF, Prestipino V, Masri R, von Fraunhofer JA. Light transmission through all-ceramic dental materials: a pilot study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;91:4416. [29] Uctasli S, Hasanreisoglu U, Wilson HJ. The attenuation of radiation by porcelain and its effect on polymerization of resin cements. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:56575. [30] Pazin MC, Moraes RR, Goncalves LS, Borges GA, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Effects of ceramic thickness and curing unit on light transmission through leucite-reinforced material and polymerization of dual-cured luting agent. J Oral Sci 2008;50:1316. [31] Heffernan MJ, Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, Haselton DR, Stanford CM, Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part I: core materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:49. [32] El-Meliegy E. Preparation and characterisation of low fusion leucite dental porcelain. Br Ceram Trans 2003;102:2614. [33] OBrien WJ, Kay KS, Boenke KM, Groh CL. Sources of color variation on ring porcelain. Dent Mater 1991;7:1703. [34] Cho MS, Lee YK, Lim BS, Lim YJ. Changes in optical properties of enamel porcelain after repeated external staining. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:43743. [35] Soares CJ, da Silva NR, Fonseca RB. Inuence of the feldspathic ceramic thickness and shade on the microhardness of dual resin cement. Oper Dent 2006;31:3849. [36] Ozturk E, Hickel R, Bolay S, Ilie N. Micromechanical properties of veneer luting resins after curing through ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:13946. [37] Akgungor G, Akkayan B, Gaucher H. Inuence of ceramic thickness and polymerization mode of a resin luting agent on early bond strength and durability with a lithium disilicate-based ceramic system. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:23441. [38] Gu XH, Kern M. Marginal discrepancies and leakage of all-ceramic crowns: inuence of luting agents and aging conditions. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:10916. [39] Paul SJ, Pliska P, Pietrobon N, Scharer P. Light transmission of composite luting resins. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:16473. [40] Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to xed prosthodontic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:26573. [41] Blatz MB, Sadan A, Maltezos C, Blatz U, Mercante D, Burgess JO. In vitro durability of the resin bond to feldspathic ceramics. Am J Dent 2004;17:16972. [42] Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LVJ, User A, Toksavul S, Vallittu PK. Shear bond strength of composite resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramics. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:12833. [43] Salz U, Zimmermann J, Salzer T. Self-curing, self-etching adhesive cement systems. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:717. [44] Witzel MF, Braga RR, Singer JM, Azevedo CL. Bond strength between polymer resin-based cement and porcelaindentin surfaces: inuence of polymerization mode and early cyclic loading. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:1459. [45] Proos KA, Swain MV, Ironside J, Steven GP. Inuence of cement on a restored crown of a rst premolar using nite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:8290. [46] Addison O, Marquis PM, Fleming GJ. Resin elasticity and the strengthening of all-ceramic restorations. J Dent Res 2007;86:51923. [47] de Castro HL, Passos SP, Zogheib LV, Bona AD. Effect of cement shade and light-curing unit on bond strength of a ceramic cemented to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2012;14:15560.
[48] Cekic-Nagas I, Canay S, Sahin E. Bonding of resin core materials to lithium disilicate ceramics: the effect of resin cement lm thickness. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:46971. [49] Liu HL, Lin CL, Sun MT, Chang YH. Numerical investigation of macro- and micro-mechanics of a ceramic veneer bonded with various cement thicknesses using the typical and submodeling nite element approaches. J Dent 2009;37:1418. [50] Oberholzer TG, Du Preez IC, Kidd M. Effect of led curing on the microleakage, shear bond strength and surface hardness of a resin-based composite restoration. Biomaterials 2005;26:39816. [51] Nalcaci A, Kucukesmen C, Uludag B. Effect of high-powered led polymerization on the shear bond strength of a light-polymerized resin luting agent to ceramic and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:1405. [52] Uhl A, Michaelis C, Mills RW, Jandt KD. The inuence of storage and indenter load on the knoop hardness of dental composites polymerized with led and halogen technologies. Dent Mater 2004;20:218. [53] Guiraldo RD, Consani S, Mastrofrancisco S, Consani RL, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Inuence of light curing unit and ceramic thickness on temperature rise during resin cement photo-activation. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 2008;49:1738. [54] Tango RN, Sinhoreti MA, Correr AB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Henriques GE. Effect of light-curing method and cement activation mode on resin cement knoop hardness. J Prosthodont 2007;16:4804. [55] Ozturk AN, Usumez A. Inuence of different light sources on microtensile bond strength and gap formation of resin cement under porcelain inlay restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:90510. [56] Masterton WL, Hurley CN, Neth EJ. Chemistry: principles and reactions. 7th ed. Belmont, CA, USA: Cengage Learning; 2011. p. 63842. [57] Horn HR. Porcelain laminate veneers bonded to etched enamel. Dent Clin North Am 1983;27:67184. [58] Simonsen RJ, Calamia JR. Tensile bond strength of etched porcelain. J Dent Res 1983;62:297. [59] Wolf DM, Powers JM, OKeefe KL. Bond strength of composite to etched and sandblasted porcelain. Am J Dent 1993;6:1558. [60] Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of etchant, etching period, and silane priming on bond strength to porcelain of composite resin. Oper Dent 1998;23:2507. [61] Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of different etching periods on the bond strength of a composite resin to a machinable porcelain. J Dent 1998;26:538. [62] Yu H, Du C, Cao Y. Shear bond test of hf acid etching machinable porcelain bonded to enamel with different concentration and disposing time. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 1998;16:16971. [63] Yu HY, Cao YL, Du CS. Shear bond test of hf acid etching porcelain bonded to enamel with different concentration and disposing time. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 1999;8:1479. [64] Barghi N, Fischer DE, Vatani L. Effects of porcelain leucite content, types of etchants, and etching time on porcelain-composite bond. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006;18:4752 [discussion 53]. [65] Naves LZ, Soares CJ, Moraes RR, Goncalves LS, Sinhoreti MAC, Correr-Sobrinho L. Surface/interface morphology and bond strength to glass ceramic etched for different periods. Oper Dent 2010;35:4207. [66] Pattanaik S, Wadkar AP. Effect of etchant variability on shear bond strength of all ceramic restorations an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011;11:5562.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e15
[67] Shimada Y, Yamaguchi S, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength of dual-cured resin cement to glass ceramics. Dent Mater 2002;18:3808. [68] Saavedra G, Ariki EK, Federico CD, Galhano G, Zamboni S, Baldissara P, et al. Effect of acid neutralization and mechanical cycling on the microtensile bond strength of glass-ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2009;34:2116. [69] Amaral R, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Resin bonding to a feldspar ceramic after different ceramic surface conditioning methods: evaluation of contact angle, surface ph, and microtensile bond strength durability. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:55160. [70] Bertolini JC. Hydrouoric acid: a review of toxicity. J Emerg Med 1992;10:1638. [71] Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Hood JA. Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:24853. [72] Della Bona A, van Noort R. Ceramic surface preparations for resin bonding. Am J Dent 1998;11:27680. [73] Foxton RM, Pereira PN, Masatoshi N, Tagami J, Miura H. Long-term durability of the dual-cure resin cement/silicon oxide ceramic bond. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:12535. [74] Nogami T, Tanoue N, Atsuta M, Matsumura H. Effectiveness of two-liquid silane primers on bonding sintered feldspathic porcelain with a dual-cured composite luting agent. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:7704. [75] Matsumura H, Kato H, Atsuta M. Shear bond strength to feldspathic porcelain of two luting cements in combination with three surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:5117. [76] Sakai M, Taira Y, Sawase T. Silane primers rather than heat treatment contribute to adhesive bonding between tri-n-butylborane resin and a machinable leucite-reinforced ceramic. Dent Mater J 2011;30: 85460. [77] Taira Y, Sakai M, Sawase T. Effects of primer containing silane and thiophosphate monomers on bonding resin to a leucite-reinforced ceramic. J Dent 2012;40:3538. [78] Li R. Development of a ceramic primer with higher bond durability for resin cement. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:5608. [79] Matinlinna JP, Choi AH, Tsoi JK. Bonding promotion of resin composite to silica-coated zirconia implant surface using a novel silane system. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:2906. [80] Meng X, Yoshida K, Taira Y, Kamada K, Luo X. Effect of siloxane quantity and ph of silane coupling agents and contact angle of resin bonding agent on bond durability of resin cements to machinable ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:718. [81] Matinlinna JP, Vallittu PK. Silane based concepts on bonding resin composite to metals. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:18. [82] 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;38:3943. [83] de Carvalho RF, Martins ME, de Queiroz JR, Leite FP, Ozcan M. Inuence of silane heat treatment on bond strength of resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic. Dent Mater J 2011;30:3927. [84] Hooshmand T, van Noort R, Keshvad A. Storage effect of a pre-activated silane on the resin to ceramic bond. Dent Mater 2004;20:63542. [85] Kara HB, Ozturk AN, Aykent F, Koc O, Ozturk B. The effect of different surface treatments on roughness and bond strength in low fusing ceramics. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26:599604. [86] Shimakura Y, Hotta Y, Fujishima A, Kunii J, Miyazaki T, Kawawa T. Bonding strength of resin cement to silicate glass ceramics for dental cad/cam systems is enhanced by
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]
[103] [104]
[105]
[106]
combination treatment of the bonding surface. Dent Mater J 2007;26:71321. Akyil MS, Yilmaz A, Bayindir F, Duymus ZY. Microtensile bond strength of resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic. Photomed Laser Surg 2011;29:197203. Gokce B, Ozpinar B, Dundar M, Comlekoglu E, Sen BH, Gungor MA. Bond strengths of all-ceramics: acid vs laser etching. Oper Dent 2007;32:1738. Gbureck U, Masten A, Probst J, Thull R. Tribochemical structuring and coating of implant metal surfaces with titanium oxide and hydroxyapatite layers. Mater Sci Eng C Biomimet Supramol Syst 2003;23:4615. Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. The effect of surface coating on the bond strength of machinable ceramics. Biomaterials 2001;22:74952. 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;34:62230. Ruttermann S, Fries L, Raab WH, Janda R. The effect of different bonding techniques on ceramic/resin shear bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:197203. Roulet JF, Soderholm KJ, Longmate J. Effects of treatment and storage conditions on ceramic/composite bond strength. J Dent Res 1995;74:3817. Stewart GP, Jain P, Hodges J. Shear bond strength of resin cements to both ceramic and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:27784. 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;35:2828. Hooshmand T, van Noort R, Keshvad A. Bond durability of the resin-bonded and silane treated ceramic surface. Dent Mater 2002;18:17988. Kato H, Matsumura H, Ide T, Atsuta M. Improved bonding of adhesive resin to sintered porcelain with the combination of acid etching and a two-liquid silane conditioner. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1028. Nagai T, Kawamoto Y, Kakehashi Y, Matsumura H. Adhesive bonding of a lithium disilicate ceramic material with resin-based luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:598605. Brum R, Mazur R, Almeida J, Borges G, Caldas D. The inuence of surface standardization of lithium disilicate glass ceramic on bond strength to a dual resin cement. Oper Dent 2011;36:47885. Ayad MF, Fahmy NZ, Rosenstiel SF. Effect of surface treatment on roughness and bond strength of a heat-pressed ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:12330. Ide T, Tanoue N, Yanagida H, Atsuta M, Matsumura H. Effectiveness of bonding systems on bonding durability of a prefabricated porcelain material. Dent Mater J 2005;24:25760. Dehoff PH, Anusavice KJ, Wang ZX. 3-Dimensional nite-element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater 1995;11:12631. Rasmussen ST. Analysis of dental shear bond strength tests, sheer or tensile? Int J Adhes Adhes 1996;16:14754. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 1995;74:15916. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky Jr JJ. Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Dent Mater 2003;19:6939. Cardoso PE, Braga RR, Carrilho MR. Evaluation of micro-tensile, shear and tensile tests determining the bond strength of three adhesive systems. Dent Mater 1998;14:3948.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
xxx.e16
[107] AA G. The phenomena of rupture and ow in solids. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 1920;221:16898. [108] Pekkan G, Hekimoglu C. Evaluation of shear and tensile bond strength between dentin and ceramics using dual-polymerizing resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:24252. [109] Crim GA, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Comparison of four thermocycling techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:503. [110] Souza RO, Castilho AA, Fernandes VV, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Durability of microtensile bond to nonetched and etched feldspar ceramic: self-adhesive resin cements vs conventional resin. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:15562. [111] Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 2003;19:72531. [112] Pereira PC, Castilho AA, Souza RO, Passos SP, Takahashi FE, Bottino MA. A comparison of the lm thickness of two adhesive luting agents and the effect of thermocycling on their microTBs to feldspathic ceramic. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2009;22:191200.
[113] Ferracane JL, Dossett JM, Pelogia F, Macedo MRP, Hilton TJ. Navigating the dentin bond strength testing highway: lessons and recommendations. J Adhes Sci Technol 2009;23:100722. [114] Drummond JL, Novickas D, Lenke JW. Physiological aging of an all-ceramic restorative material. Dent Mater 1991;7:1337. [115] Loher H, Behr M, Hintereder U, Rosentritt M, Handel G. The impact of cement mixing and storage errors on the risk of failure of glassceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:21722. [116] Salvio LA, Correr-Sobrinho L, Consani S, Sinhoreti MA, de Goes MF, Knowles JC. Effect of water storage and surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of ips empress 2 ceramic. J Prosthodont 2007;16:1929. [117] Wegner SM, Gerdes W, Kern M. Effect of different articial aging conditions on ceramic-composite bond strength. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:26772.

Bonding Resin Cement & Glass Ceramic MTRL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonding Resin Cement & Glass Ceramic MTRL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DENTAL-2320; No.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

Materials and methods

Articles reviewed and data extraction

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

The effect of resin cement on the ceramic-resin bond

The effect of external factors on resin cements

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

4.3.1.2. Substitutes of HF. Although HF can effectively

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

Comparison between different surface treatments

Tensile and shear bond strength test

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

Table 1 Comparison of bond strength of different surface treatments. Authors

Mean strength [MPa]

Nogami et al. [2]

L 4-META E1 Porcelain Liner M E2 Tokuso Ceramics Primer d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s x x x ( 2 0 1 4 ) xxx.e1xxx.e16

Taira et al. [3]

Kara et al. [4]

Jedynakiewicz et al. [5]

Ruttermann et al. [6]

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

E6 Clearl Procelain Bond Activator mixed with SE Bond Primer TC

Stewart et al. [7]

Matsumura et al. [8]

Brum et al. [9]

Hooshmand et al. [10]

adhesive effectiveness will not deteriorate when stored for up to 1 year

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

Table 1 (Continued) Authors

Mean strength [MPa]

Naves et al. [12]

Della Bona et al. [13]

Saavedra et al. [14]

Amaral et al. [15]

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

De Carvalho et al. [16]

Akyil et al. [17]

Peumans et al. [18]

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

Thermocycling and loadcycling

Microshear & microtensile bond strength test

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

Appendix A. Supplementary data

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

DENTAL-2320; No. of Pages 16

You might also like