0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
65 vues0 page
The study tested the shear bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem) and a conventional resin cement (Panavia 21) to zirconia after application of different silanes, with or without aging. 360 zirconia specimens were divided into groups for the different silane pretreatments and cements. The silanes tested were Monobond-S, Alloy Primer, Clearfil, and an experimental universal primer. Shear bond strength was measured initially and after water storage and thermal cycling aging. The silanes improved the initial bond strength of RelyX Unicem more than Panavia 21. Aging reduced the bond strength of RelyX Unicem
The study tested the shear bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem) and a conventional resin cement (Panavia 21) to zirconia after application of different silanes, with or without aging. 360 zirconia specimens were divided into groups for the different silane pretreatments and cements. The silanes tested were Monobond-S, Alloy Primer, Clearfil, and an experimental universal primer. Shear bond strength was measured initially and after water storage and thermal cycling aging. The silanes improved the initial bond strength of RelyX Unicem more than Panavia 21. Aging reduced the bond strength of RelyX Unicem
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
The study tested the shear bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem) and a conventional resin cement (Panavia 21) to zirconia after application of different silanes, with or without aging. 360 zirconia specimens were divided into groups for the different silane pretreatments and cements. The silanes tested were Monobond-S, Alloy Primer, Clearfil, and an experimental universal primer. Shear bond strength was measured initially and after water storage and thermal cycling aging. The silanes improved the initial bond strength of RelyX Unicem more than Panavia 21. Aging reduced the bond strength of RelyX Unicem
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
PROSTHODONTICS Inuence of silanes on the shear bond strength of resin cements to zirconia Figen Akyelken Gkkaya, Med Dent 1 /Bogna Stawarczyk, Dipl Ing MSc 2 /Christoph H.F. Hmmerle, Prof Dr med dent 3 / Irena Sailer, PD Dr med dent 4 Objective: To test the shear bond strength of self-adhesive and conventional resin cements to zirconia after the application of different types of silanes with/without aging. Method and Materials: Three hundred and sixty zirconia specimens were randomized into 10 groups (n = 36). Five groups were assigned to the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX-Unicem (RXU) and ve groups to the conventional resin cement Panavia 21 (PAN). The groups were further assigned to the following pretreatments: Monobond-S (M), Alloy Primer (AP), Clearl (C), Experimental Universal Primer (EUP), or without silane (control group). Twelve specimens of each of the cements were tested after water storage for 24 hours (initial shear bond strength). The remaining 24 samples were aged (1,500 cycles, n = 12; or 13,500 cycles, n = 12). The shear bond strength was measured (Universal Testing Machine; 1 mm/min, Zwick Roell Z010). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Scheff tests. Students t test was applied to test the differences between the two cements (P < .05). Results: The initial bond strength of RXU was increased by the application of the different silanes. The silanes had less inuence on the initial bond strength of PAN. Aging reduced the bond strength of RXU signicantly in com- bination with two of the silanes (AP, 0 0 MPa; C, 4.1 0.9 MPa; P < .05). Aging led to a signicant reduction of the bond strength values of PAN with the primers AP (2.9 0.4 MPa) and EUP (2.5 0.5 MPa; P < .05). Conclusion: The present study indicates that the bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement was positively inuenced by the pretreat- ment of the zirconia surface with different silanes. Aging led to a decrease of the bond strength of both types of cements, irrespective of most of the silanes used. (Quintessence Int 2013;44:591600; doi:10.3290/j.qi.a29754) Key words: aging, pretreatment, resin cements, self-adhesive resin cement, shear bond strength, silane, universal silane, zirconia 1 Private Practitioner, Dental School Clinic, Stacherholzstr. 32, CH-9320 Arbon, Switzerland. 2 Dental Technologist, Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Zurich, Switzerland. 3 Head of Clinic, Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Zurich, Switzerland. 4 Senior Lecturer, Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Zurich, Switzerland. Correspondence: PD Dr Irena Sailer, Clinic of Fixed and Remov- able Prosthodontics and Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: irena.sailer@zzm.uzh.ch The high-strength ceramic zirconia exhibits promising clinical performance as a frame- work material for all-ceramic crowns and xed dental prostheses (FDPs). 1,2 Few frac- tures of zirconia frameworks have been reported. 1,2 These good results are associ- ated with the excellent mechanical and physical properties of zirconia when com- pared to other ceramics. 3,4 Zirconia is a polycrystalline high- strength ceramic which does not contain a silica glass matrix. Due to its specic chem- ical composition the adhesive cementation of zirconia can only be accomplished with specic resin cements. 5-7 Zirconia cannot be roughened by hydro- uoric acid etching used for the pretreat- ment of glass-ceramics. 8,9 Additionally, the conventional silanes used for glass-ceram- ics do not chemically bond to zirconia. These silanes improve the bond strength between the ceramic and the resin cement by forming a siloxane that cross-links with 592 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al the silica in the glass-ceramic. 9 Since zirco- nia is free of silica, different types of silanes and resin cements are needed as for glass- ceramics. 5,10 The clinical procedures asso- ciated with the cementation of zirconia- based reconstructions can be complicated due to the fact that clinicians need to be aware of the chemical composition of zirco- nia and the suitable resin cements for its adhesive cementation. Recently, a number of different resin cements and new silanes were introduced to improve the adhesive xation of zirconia-based reconstructions. In order to provide chemical bonding to zirconia, the silanes and/or resin cements need to contain acidic monomers such as phosphate monomer 10-methacryloyloxy- decyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP). 5-7,11
Recent studies showed that resin cements with acidic monomers led to signicantly higher bond strength values compared to conventional resin cements without acidic monomers. 4-7,9,11 Furthermore, the applica- tion of MDP-containing silanes (eg, Clearl New Bond and Clearl Porcelain Bond Acti- vator, Kuraray Europe) significantly increased the shear bond strength of resin cements (eg, Panavia 21 [PAN], Kuraray Europe) to zirconia. 12 Owing to the fact that resin cements are hydrophobic, numerous pretreatment prim- ing and bonding steps are needed for the chemical bonding to dentin. As a conse- quence, adhesive cementation is a very technique-sensitive procedure in clinical practice. Clinical problems like the contami- nation 13 of the surface with saliva or blood, 14
or errors at application of the pretreatment solutions or the cements 15 lead to a signi- cant decrease of the bond strength values. In addition, the chemical compatibility of the resin cements and the different restora- tive materials needs to be considered, as indicated above. Recently developed self-adhesive resin cements aim for a simplication of the adhesive cementation. These resin cements bond to both tooth substance and other materials without a specic pretreatment. 16
Self-adhesive resin cements with acidic monomers, such as RelyX Unicem (RXU; 3M ESPE), exhibit promising results in laboratory and clinical studies. 16 Interest- ingly, good bonding performance of this cement was observed with zirconia. 17,18 It has been demonstrated that the initial bond strength of resin cements generally is reduced by aging in the humid oral environ- ment. However, the application of silanes leads to a stabilization of the bond strength values and, hence, to less inuence of aging. 4 In order to simplify the silanization, uni- versal silanes that chemically bond to differ- ent types of materials were recently intro- duced. These universal silanes and/or resin cements could signicantly simplify the clin- ical procedures for the cementation of zir- conia-based reconstructions and would be very desirable from a clinical perspective, provided that the materials are compatible. No reports of the inuence of these silanes, or their interaction with different types of resin cements and materials are available. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to test whether or not the shear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to zirconia is inuenced by the application of different types of silanes. Furthermore, the effect of the silanes on the bonding performance of the cements with aging was analyzed. The following hypotheses were tested: (1) the shear bond strength of self-adhesive and conventional resin cements to zirconia is improved by the application of conven- tional and/or universal silanes; and (2) the shear bond strength of the two types of cements is less prone to aging through the application of the respective silanes. METHOD AND MATERIALS The shear bond strength of two resin cements, one self-adhesive resin cement (RXU) and one conventional resin cement (PAN), to zirconia was tested in combina- tion with the application of the following silanes and primers, respectively: one methacrylate-acid-containing silane (Mono- bond S [M], Ivoclar Vivadent), two phos- phate-monomer-containing silanes (Clearl Porcelain Bond Activator [C]; Alloy Primer [AP], Kuraray Europe) and one universal silane (Experimental Universal Primer [EUP], Ivoclar Vivadent). (Note that EUP was a prototype silane, and was a rst ver- VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 593 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al sion of the further developed and currently available silane Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent. At time of the study EUP was not approved for clinical application.) The detailed information on the chemical composition, lot numbers, and brands of the silanes and primers is given in Table 1. Specimen preparation Densely sintered zirconia blanks (Cercon, DeguDent) were used for the fabrication of the zirconia specimens. The blanks were cut into 360 disk-shaped specimens with a diameter of 20 mm and a thickness of 2 mm. The specimens were embedded in acrylic resin, exposing the top surface of the ceramic. The exposed zirconia surface of specimens was polished to high gloss (Abramin). The 360 polished zirconia specimens were divided into 10 groups of 36 speci- mens each. Five of these groups were assigned to the self-adhesive resin cement RXU. The remaining five groups were assigned to the conventional resin cement PAN. For both resin cements the groups were further assigned to the pretreatment methods described in Table 2 (test). For both resin cements, untreated specimens acted as control groups (Table 2). The zirconia surface of the specimens was cleaned with alcohol. Subsequently, Table 2 Assignment of pretreatment groups Cement Test/control Pretreatment No. of specimens RXU Test RXUM 36 RXUAP 36 RXUC 36 RXUEUP 36 Control RXU 36 PAN Test PANM 36 PANAP 36 PANC 36 PANEUP 36 Control PAN 36 Table 1 Summary of products used Product Abbreviation Manufacturer LOT No. Cement RelyX Unicem RXU 3M ESPE 300136/290546/287407 Panavia 21 PAN Kuraray Europe 00406C UNI TC/ 00647C CAT Adhesive Monobond S M Ivoclar Vivadent J23960 Alloy Primer AP Kuraray Europe 239AA Clearl Porcelain Bond Activator C Kuraray Europe 00201B/Primer:00653A Experimental Universal Primer EUP Ivoclar Vivadent R38-082-2 594 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al the specimens were pretreated with the respective silanes following the manufactur- ers instructions (Table 3), and the resin cements were applied to the pretreated sur- faces. The specimens of the control groups were cleaned, and the resin cements were directly applied to the untreated surfaces. The specimens were mounted in a cus- tomized holding device (Fig 1) with the exposed zirconia surface on the top. For the standardized application of the resin cements, acrylic cylinders with an inner diameter of 2.9 mm (DR-TEC) were mounted on the zirconia surface by means of the holding device, thus dening the bonding area for the resin cements at 6.605 mm 2 . The procedures used for the standardized application of the resin cements and the shear bond strength test were published in detail elsewhere 19 and are only briey summarized herein. The cements were applied into the cylin- ders according to the manufacturers rec- ommendations (Table 3), and a steel screw (inner hexagon, outer diameter 2.8 mm) was inserted into the cylinder applying a standardized load on the cements of 100 g (Fig 2). With this procedure the thickness of the resin cement layers was set at 0.5 mm for all specimens. The excess resin cement was carefully removed with cotton pellets. All specimens cemented with RXU (n = 36) were light cured with a light-emit- ting diode (LED) polymerization lamp (Elipar Freelight 2, 3M ESPE) for 20 sec- onds as recommended by the manufactur- ers. The 36 PAN specimens were chemi- cally cured for 10 minutes at 37C. After the setting of the cements the specimens were stored in distilled water (37C) for 24 hours. Twelve samples of each of the cements were tested straight after the storage in water (initial shear bond strength). The remaining 24 samples of each cement were aged by means of thermocycling (Thermo- cycler, Willitec). Twelve specimens of each group were aged with 1,500 thermocycles (TC; 5C and 55C, 30 seconds dwell time). The remaining specimens (n = 12) were tested after 13,500 TC. Table 3 Detailed information on the application of the resin cements and silanes Name Application steps RXU Activate the Aplicap capsule in the Aplicap Activator (3M ESPE) for 24 s. Mix the capsule for 10 s in the RotoMix (3M ESPE). Apply cement to the substrate surface with the Aplicap Applier (3M ESPE). PAN Mix the catalyst and universal pastes for 2030 s, creating a homogenous paste. Apply cement to the substrate with a spatula. Apply Oxyguard II (Kuraray Europe) to all margins for 3 min; remove by rins- ing with water. M Apply the liquid with a brush. Leave for 1 min and dry with a gentle airow. AP Apply a thin layer on the surface. Leave for 5 s. C Mix Clearl SE Primer (Kuraray Europe) and Clearl Porcelain Bond Activator with one another 1:1. Apply the liquid on the surface. Leave for 20 s. Blow the solvents with a gentle airow. EUP Apply a thin layer with a brush and leave for 60 s. Blow with air thoroughly. Fig 1 Bonding device (A, xed specimen; B, holder). A B VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 595 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al Shear bond strength test The shear bond strength test was carried out in a universal testing machine (Zwick Roell Z010) with load applied at a cross- head speed of 1 mm/min. For this, the specimens were positioned by means of a special sample device (Fig 3) with the zir- conia surface parallel to the loading piston, and the chisel of the loading piston was adjusted. The load was applied to the cylin- der with a 300 m distance between the piston and the surface of the specimen. The load at debonding of the cylinders was recorded in N. For further analysis the load values were converted to MPa by dividing the failure load (N) by the bonding area (mm 2 ). Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19 (SPSS). Descriptive statis- tics were computed. Within each pretreat- ment and aging group, differences between mean shear bond strength values of the groups were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by a post-hoc Scheff test. Addi- tionally, Students t test was applied to test the differences between the two resin cements. P values smaller than 5% were considered to be statistically signicant in all tests. RESULTS Detailed information on the respective shear bond strength values of the groups with and without application of silanes and the differ- ences between groups are given in Table 4. Infuence of silanes on the initial shear bond strength At all time points, the application of the silanes increased the initial shear bond strength (0 TC) of the self-adhesive resin cement RXU as compared to the samples without pretreatment. In contrast, the appli- cation of most of the silanes did not have an inuence on the initial shear bond strength of the conventional cement PAN. For this resin cement only the silane C had a posi- tive effect (Table 4). Infuence of aging on shear bond strength Aging (1,500 TC and 13,500 TC) had a sig- nicant effect on the bond strength of RXU to the zirconia samples that were pretreated with C and AP. A signicant reduction of the bond strength values was observed for these samples. No reduction of the bond strength was found for the samples pre- treated with the other silanes and for the Fig 2 Bonding device (A, xed specimen; B, holder; C, load simulating nger pressure [100 g]). Fig 3 Test device for shear bond strength. B C A 596 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al specimens without pretreatment (Table 4 and Fig 4). Aging also had a signicant inuence on the conventional resin cement PAN. In gen- eral, the bond strength was reduced after aging (Fig 5). For the samples pretreated with AP, C, and EUP the decrease was sig- nicant as compared to the initial bond strength (Table 4). Comparison of the shear bond strength of the two cements No signicant difference of the initial shear bond strength values was found when the conventional cement PAN and the self- adhesive resin cement RXU were com- pared. Furthermore, aging did not exhibit a pronounced inuence on the comparison of the two resin cements. Only in two of the tests was a statistically signicant differ- ence between PAN and RXU found (Table 5). DISCUSSION The rst part of this study tested the effect of different silanes on the shear bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement RXU and the conventional resin cement PAN to zirconia. The shear bond strength of RXU was increased by the application of the silanes. In contrast, the application of most of the silanes did not have any inu- ence on the conventional resin cement PAN. Hence, the rst hypothesis could only be accepted for the self-adhesive resin cement RXU. The second part of this study investi- gated the inuence of aging on the shear bond strength of RXU and PAN after pre- treatment of zirconia with the respective silanes. Aging had a highly variable inu- ence on the bond strength of the tested silanes and cements. For RXU, aging reduced the bond strength signicantly in combination with two of the silanes (AP and C). No inuence, however, was found for the specimens without silane pretreatment or for the specimens pretreated with M and EUP. For PAN, a signicant reduction of the bond strength was observed in combination with the silanes AP and EUP after aging. Aging, however, had no inuence on the specimens treated with the other pretreat- ment methods. Thus, the second hypothe- sis was rejected. The results of the present study are of signicance for everyday clinical practice. They indicate that the newly developed uni- versal resin cements and silanes are not necessarily compatible with conventionally Table 4 Shear bond strength results for each resin cement with different silanes No. of thermocycles Control M AP C EUP RXU 0 TC P (mean difference) 1.4 (0.7) A a 5.3 (0.9) A ab 5.2 (0.8) B ab 8.1 (1.1) B b 4.7 (0.8) A ab 95% CI -0.23.1 3.27.4 3.47.0 5.710.6 2.96.6 1,500 TC P (mean difference) 2.6 (0.7) A a 3.2 (0.9) A a 4.1 (1.1) B ab 7.7 (0.5) B b 3.9 (0.7) A a 95% CI 1.14.2 1.25.3 1.76.6 6.58.9 2.35.6 13,500 TC P (mean difference) 2.4 (0.7) A ab 5.3 (1.4) A b 0 (0) A a 4.1 (0.9) A ab 5.3 (1.4) A b 95% CI 0.84.0 2.18.4 00 2.16.1 2.18.6 PAN 0 TC P (mean difference) 4.0 (0.4) A a 4.2 (0.4) A ab 5.0 (0.5) B ab 6.0 (0.5) B b 5.4 (0.3) B ab 95% CI 3.04.9 3.45.1 3.96.0 4.97.1 4.86.1 1,500 TC P (mean difference) 7.5 (1.0) B b 4.8 (0.3) A a 5.3 (0.4) B ab 4.2 (0.3) A a 4.0 (0.6) AB a 95% CI 5.29.9 4.25.4 4.36.3 3.54.9 2.75.4 13,500 TC P (mean difference) 3.3 (0.6) A a 3.9 (0.4) A a 2.9 (0.4) A a 3.2 (0.4) A a 2.5 (0.5) A a 95% CI 1.94.6 3.04.8 1.33.3 2.24.2 1.43.5 A/B, ANOVA, inuence of aging within a pretreatment; a/b, ANOVA, inuence of the primer at one time; Aa indicates statis- tically different from Bb; ABab indicates not signicantly different from Aa or Bb; CI, condence interval; TC, thermocycles. VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 597 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al used adhesive materials, and in contrast to improving the bonding quality, can even lead to a reduction of the bond strength if combined inappropriately. It is, therefore, of great importance for good long-term stability of the bonding that only specic combina- tions are used for the adhesive cementation. In the present study, pretreatment with MDP-containing silanes or primers (C and AP) increased the shear bond strength between the zirconia and the self-adhesive resin cement RXU. The increase of the shear bond strength was also shown in a study by de Souza et al. 20 Kern et al 21 indi- cated that this increase is most likely caused by a chemical interaction between MDP and zirconia. This assumption is sup- ported by the results of several studies. The phosphate ester monomer of MDP was shown to bond directly to the oxides of alu- mina and zirconia. 21-23 This chemical inter- action also lead to higher shear bond strength of MDP-containing resin cements to zirconia. 4,9,16,18,24-27 Blatz et al 4 showed that the phosphate ester monomer of MDP exhibited a positive inuence irrespective of whether the monomer was part of the silane or of the resin cement. Fig 5 Mean values and standard deviations of the shear bond strength of the conventional resin cement Panavia 21 with dierent pretreatments and aging (0 TC, 1,500 TC, 13,500 TC). Fig 4 Mean values and standard deviations of the shear bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement RXU with dierent pretreatments and aging (0 TC, 1,500 TC, 13,500 TC). 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 1,500 13,500 No. of thermocycles S h e a r
b o n d
s t r e n g t h
( M P a ) without silane M AP C EUP 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 1,500 13,500 No. of thermocycles S h e a r
b o n d
s t r e n g t h
( M P a ) without silane M AP C EUP Table 5 Results of the comparison between RXU and PAN RXU vs PAN Control M AP C EUP 0 TC P (mean difference) .005* .315 .832 .780 .418 95% CI -4.26 -0.83 -1.093.17 -1.692.09 -0.264.62 -2.591.14 1,500 TC P (mean difference) .001* .123 .332 < .001* .945 95% CI -7.48 -2.34 -3.590.48 -3.711.33 2.204.74 -2.021.89 13,500 TC P (mean difference) .349 .360 < .001* .371 .080 95% CI -2.831.04 -1.774.54 -3.23 -1.35 -1.132.97 -0.396.15 *, signicant difference (P < .05). CI, condence interval; TC, thermocycles. 598 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al In most studies, 9,23,28,29 the silane C increased the shear bond strength between PAN and zirconia. However, this nding was not supported by the results of the present study. The differences in the results might be caused by the different study pro- tocols. In the present study no airborne-par- ticle abrasion of the zirconia was per- formed, while in other investigations the zirconia surface was roughened by air- borne-particle abrasion. 30 Numerous stud- ies have shown that airborne-particle abra- sion positively inuences the shear bond strength between resin cement and zirco- nia. 24,30-34 Future studies are needed to test the inuence of a combination of airborne- particle abrasion and application of silanes on the bond strength of resin cements to zirconia. Aging had a negative inuence on the shear bond strength of both types of resin cements to the zirconia. This observation is supported by numerous studies. 6,7,10,12,18 In contrast, Lindgren et al 35 reported no signif- icant inuence of aging on the shear bond strength of RXU with the metal primer. In the present study, aging was performed by means of storage in water and/or thermocy- cling. In general, the shear bond strength values decreased after 1,500 thermocycles and also after 13,500 thermocycles. The experimental universal silane EUP that was tested in the present study had no inuence on the shear bond strength values compared to the other silanes. This result was discouraging and indicated that this prototype silane needed signicant further improvement prior to introduction to the clinical practice. Since no further investiga- tions testing this specic silane were avail- able, the present results are difcult to judge. Future studies of the commercially available version of the prototype EUP are needed to conrm its application in the presently tested combinations for the adhe- sive xation of zirconia-based reconstruc- tions. One of the reasons for the differences between the results of the present study and other studies might be the different testing procedure. In a recent review of the literature by Heintze et al, 36-38 the different in-vitro testing procedures were compared. In most of the shear bond strength tests, resin composite cylinders were bonded to at polished surfaces, and the shear bond strength test was performed with a specic testing machine. The authors concluded that the shear bond strength test was easy and fast; however, the results were highly inuenced by the operator and the specic settings of the testing machines. Factors such as the positioning of the shearing blade on the specimens or high forces applied by the blade greatly affected the bond strength values. Furthermore, the way the specimens were aged (ie, whether or not thermocycling was performed), had a signicant impact on the bond strength val- ues. The reviews showed that in most of the studies solely storage in water for 24 hours was used for aging. The authors concluded that for the analysis of the long-term bond strength of silanes and/or resin cements to various materials, aging for a minimum of 3 months should be performed. 39 Hence, in the present as well as in other studies the simulation of the oral conditions by means of thermocycling had an important effect on the durability of the resin bond strength to zirconia, and this might be the reason for the differences in the results. 4,5,25,40 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the present study indicated that the shear bond strength is affected by the pretreatment of the zirconia surface with different silanes. This nding is of specic interest to daily clinical practice, since new simplified resin cements and adhesive agents (eg, silanes) are constantly being introduced in order to improve the bonding to zirconia. Hence, clinicians need to take care of the chemical compatibility of the components used. Interestingly, in the present study no dif- ference was found between the self-adhe- sive and the conventional resin cements. This indicates that even with simplied adhesive luting procedures using self- adhesive resin cements, good bond strength to zirconia can be achieved. The additional application of compatible silanes increases the bonding capacity of the self- adhesive cement. VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 599 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al However, since the presently applied shear bond strength test is critical in the abovementioned reasons, studies using more standard procedures like the micro- tensile test 41,42 should be performed to test the present observations in more detail. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully thank the companies ESPE and Ivoclar Vivadent for supporting this study. We also thank Mrs Gisela Mller for the support with the preparation of this manuscript. REFERENCES 1. Schley J-S, Heussen N, Reich S, Fischer J, Haselhuhn K, Wolfart S. Survival probability of zirconia-based xed dental prostheses up to 5 yr: a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Sci 2010;118: 443450. 2. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported xed dental prostheses: a system- atic review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:493502. 3. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic bioma- terial. Biomaterials 1999;20:125. 4. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Martin J, Lang B. In vitro evalua- tion of shear bond strength of resin to densely-sin- tered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic after long-term storage and thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:356362. 5. Kern M, Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability. Dent Mater 1998;14:6471. 6. Wegner SM, Kern M. Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:139147. 7. Wegner SM, Gerdes W, Kern M. Eect of dierent articial aging conditions on ceramic-composite bond strength. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:267272. 8. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia- based dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:449456. 9. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:268274. 10. Wenger SM, Kern M. Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:139147. 11. zcan M, Nijhuis H, Valandro LF. Eect of various surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional mono- mer to zirconia after thermal aging. Dent Mater 2008;27:99104. 12. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Arch GH Jr, Lang BR. In vitro evaluation of long-term bonding of Procera AllCe- ram alumina restorations with a modied resin lut- ing agent. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:381387. 13. Phark JH, Duarte S Jr, Kahn H, Blatz MB, Sadan A. Inuence of contamination and cleaning on bond strength to modied zirconia. Dent Mater 2009;25: 15411550. 14. Eiriksson SO, Pereira PNR, Swift EJ, Heymann HO, Sigurdsson A. Eects of saliva contamination on res- in-resin bond strength. Dent Mater 2004;20:3744. 15. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Adhesive systems: eect on bond strength of incorrect use. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:233242. 16. Miragaya L, Maia LC, Sabrosa CE, De Goes MF, Da Silva EM. Evaluation of self-adhesive resin cement bond strength to yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic (Y-TZP) using four surface treatments. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:473480. 17. Mirmohammadi H, Aboushelib MNM, Salameh Z, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ. Innovations in bonding to zirconia based ceramics: Part III. Phosphate mono- mer resin cements. Dent Mater 2010;26:786792. 18. Blatz MB, Chiche G, Holst St, Sadan A. Inuence of surface treatment and simulated aging on bond strengths of luting agents to zirconia. Quintessence Int 2007;38:745753. 19. Stawarczyk B, Hartmann R, Hartmann L, et al. The eect of dentin desensitizer on shear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin luting cements after aging. Oper Dent 2011;36:492501. 20. De Souza GM, Thompson VP, Braga RR. Eect of metal primers on microtensile bond strength between zirconia and resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:296303. 21. Kern M. Resin bonding to oxide ceramics for dental restorations. J Adhes Sci Technol 2009;23:10971111. 22. Lthy H, Loeel O, Hammerle CH. Eect of thermo- cycling on bond strength of luting cements to zirco- nia ceramic. Dent Mater 2006;22:195200. 23. Kern M, Barloi A, Yang B. Surface conditioning inu- ences zirconia ceramic bonding. J Dent Res 2009;88:817822. 24. Ural C, Klnk T, Klnk S, Kurt M, Baba S. Determi- nation of resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic surface using dierent primers. Acta Odont Scand 2011;69:4853. 25. Atsu SS, Kilicarslan MA, Kucukesmen HC, Aka PS. Eect of zirconium-oxide ceramic surface treat- ments on the bond strength to adhesive resin. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:430436. 26. Wolfart M, Lehmann F, Wolfart S, Kern M. Durability of the resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic after using dierent surface conditioning methods. Dent Mater 2007;23:4550. 600 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 2013 QUI NTESSENCE I NTERNATI ONAL Gkkaya et al 27. Akgungor G, Sen D, Aydin M. Inuence of dierent surface treatments on the short-term bond strength and durability between a zirconia post and a com- posite resin core material. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99: 388399. 28. Phark JH, Duarte S Jr, Blatz M, Sadan A. An in vitro evaluation of the long-term resin bond to a new densely sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic surface. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:2938. 29. De Souza GM, Silva NR, Paulillo LA, De Goes MF, Rekow ED, Thompson VP. Bond strength to high- crystalline content zirconia after dierent surface treatments. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;93:318323. 30. Blatz MB, Phark JH, Ozer F, et al. In vitro comparative bond strength of contemporary self-adhesive resin cements to zirconium oxide ceramic with and with- out air-particle abrasion. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:187192. 31. Qeblawi DM, Muoz CA, Brewer JD, Monaco EA Jr. The eect of zirconia surface treatment on exural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:210220. 32. Nothdurft FD, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR. Eect of sur- face treatment on the initial bond strength of dier- ent luting cements to zirconium oxide ceramic. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:229235. 33. Re D, Augusti D, Sailer I, Spreaco D, Cerutti A. The eect of surface treatment on the adhesion of resin cements to Y-TZP. Eur J Esthet Dent 2008;3:186196. 34. Thompson JY, Stoner BR, Piascik JR, Smith R. Adhe- sion/cementation to zirconia and other non-silicate ceramics: Where are we now? Dent Mater 2011;27: 7182. 35. Lindgren J, Smeds J, Sjgren G. Eect of surface treatments and aging in water on bond strength to zirconia. Oper Dent 2008;33:675681. 36. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. A review in 3 parts. Part 1: Approval requirements and stan- dardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2011;121:804816. 37. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in-vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. A review in 3 parts. Part 2: Non-standardized tests of composite materials. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahn- med 2011;121:916930. 38. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. A review in 3 parts. Part 3: In vitro tests of adhesive systems. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2011;121:10241040. 39. Carrilho MR, Carvalho RM, Tay FR, Yiu C, Pashley DH. Durability of resin-dentin bonds related to water and oil storage. Am J Dent 2005;18:315319. 40. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999;27:8999. 41. Sano H, Sono T, Sonoda H, et al. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of a microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994;10:236240. 42. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, et al. The micro- tensile bond test: a review. J Adhes Dent 1999;1: 299309.
A Comparative Study of Mechanical Properties of Zinc Acrylate Epoxy nanocomposites Reinforced by AL2O3 and Cloisite®30B and Their Mixture: Tensile Strength and Fracture Toughness: A Comparative Study of Mechanical Properties of Zinc Acrylate Epoxy nanocomposites Reinforced by AL2O3 and Cloisite®30B and Their Mixture: Tensile Strength and Fracture Toughness