IADR Abstract Archives
Durability of Resin Bonding to Lithium Disilicate Using Different Primers
Objectives: To evaluate the bonding durability after artificial aging provided by two different self-etching ceramic primers compared with conventional ceramic primers.
Methods: Lithium disilicate blocks (10 × 10 mm, 3.4 mm thickness, e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent were bonded to Plexiglas tubes filled with a composite resin (Clearfil Core, Kuraray) using 5 bonding methods (N=24). Specimens of 2 groups underwent no further treatment after cleaning in an ultrasonic bath and were bonded using a self-etching primer and the corresponding luting resin (MEP: Monobond Etch&Prime 2 (experimental)/Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent; UPE: Universal Primer/Estecem, Tokuyama). Specimens of the other 3 groups were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid before bonded using conventional bonding systems (MPV: Monobond Plus/Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent; SUR: Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Ultimate, 3M Espe; GML: G-Multi Primer /G-CEM LinkForce, GC). Each group (N=24) was divided into 3 subgroups (n=8) according to the storage conditions (3 days water storage (37°C), 30 days water storage, 7,500 thermal cycles (5°C to 55°C) and 150 days water storage, 37,500 thermal cycles). Data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell-test. The fracture mode was investigated using optical microscopy.
Results: After 3 days the median TBS ranged from 14.6 to 41.7 MPa, after 30 days from 4.2 to 39.0 MPa and after 150 days from 0 to 29.7 MPa. Both tested bonding systems using a self-etching primer showed a significantly lower TBS than group MPV using a conventional ceramic bonding system. Only group MPV showed a mainly cohesive fracture mode after 30 or 150 days of water storage with thermal cycling.
Conclusions: Especially after long-term storage with additional thermal cycling the bonding systems using a self-etching primer do not provide a high bond strength.
Methods: Lithium disilicate blocks (10 × 10 mm, 3.4 mm thickness, e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent were bonded to Plexiglas tubes filled with a composite resin (Clearfil Core, Kuraray) using 5 bonding methods (N=24). Specimens of 2 groups underwent no further treatment after cleaning in an ultrasonic bath and were bonded using a self-etching primer and the corresponding luting resin (MEP: Monobond Etch&Prime 2 (experimental)/Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent; UPE: Universal Primer/Estecem, Tokuyama). Specimens of the other 3 groups were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid before bonded using conventional bonding systems (MPV: Monobond Plus/Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent; SUR: Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Ultimate, 3M Espe; GML: G-Multi Primer /G-CEM LinkForce, GC). Each group (N=24) was divided into 3 subgroups (n=8) according to the storage conditions (3 days water storage (37°C), 30 days water storage, 7,500 thermal cycles (5°C to 55°C) and 150 days water storage, 37,500 thermal cycles). Data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Games-Howell-test. The fracture mode was investigated using optical microscopy.
Results: After 3 days the median TBS ranged from 14.6 to 41.7 MPa, after 30 days from 4.2 to 39.0 MPa and after 150 days from 0 to 29.7 MPa. Both tested bonding systems using a self-etching primer showed a significantly lower TBS than group MPV using a conventional ceramic bonding system. Only group MPV showed a mainly cohesive fracture mode after 30 or 150 days of water storage with thermal cycling.
Conclusions: Especially after long-term storage with additional thermal cycling the bonding systems using a self-etching primer do not provide a high bond strength.