IADR Abstract Archives
Bond Strengths of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Blocks
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of four different resin bonding systems on the bond strengths of resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramic blocks (Initial LiSi Block, GC).
Methods: Lithium disilicate specimens were obtained from blocks using a low-speed diamond saw. Disk specimens (n=10/gp) were ground with grit #1000 silicon-carbide paper and then applied with one of four primers containing a silane coupling agent {(Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SUA, 3M ESPE), BONDMER Lightless (BL, Tokuyama Dental), CLEARFIL CERAMIC PRIMER PLUS (CCPP, Kuraray Noritake Dental), and G-Multi PRIMER (GMP, GC)}. The glass-ceramic specimens were bonded to stainless steel rods with one of four resin cements {(RelyX Ultimate (RU, 3M ESPE), ESTECEM II (ECII, Tokuyama Dental), PANAVIA V5 (PV5, Kuraray Noritake Dental), and G-CEM ONE EM (GCOE, GC)}. The tensile bond strengths were measured after 24h (TC0) and after thermal cycling at 4—60°C (TC5000). Means±SDs of tensile bond strengths are listed in the table. Data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA, and the same lowercase superscript letters were not significantly different by Tukey-Kramer tests (p>0.05).
Results: The BL/ECII group showed a significantly highest bond strength at TC0. At TC5000, the SUA/RU group showed significantly lower bond strengths than did the other three groups. For all resin bonding systems, the bond strength significantly decreased after TC5000 (p<0.05).
Conclusions: The bond strengths of resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramic blocks varied greatly among manufacturers of resin bonding systems, which might be caused by the effectiveness of the silane coupling agent contained in each primer. Treatment with hydrofluoric acid may be desirable to obtain durable bonding of resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramic blocks.
Methods: Lithium disilicate specimens were obtained from blocks using a low-speed diamond saw. Disk specimens (n=10/gp) were ground with grit #1000 silicon-carbide paper and then applied with one of four primers containing a silane coupling agent {(Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SUA, 3M ESPE), BONDMER Lightless (BL, Tokuyama Dental), CLEARFIL CERAMIC PRIMER PLUS (CCPP, Kuraray Noritake Dental), and G-Multi PRIMER (GMP, GC)}. The glass-ceramic specimens were bonded to stainless steel rods with one of four resin cements {(RelyX Ultimate (RU, 3M ESPE), ESTECEM II (ECII, Tokuyama Dental), PANAVIA V5 (PV5, Kuraray Noritake Dental), and G-CEM ONE EM (GCOE, GC)}. The tensile bond strengths were measured after 24h (TC0) and after thermal cycling at 4—60°C (TC5000). Means±SDs of tensile bond strengths are listed in the table. Data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA, and the same lowercase superscript letters were not significantly different by Tukey-Kramer tests (p>0.05).
Results: The BL/ECII group showed a significantly highest bond strength at TC0. At TC5000, the SUA/RU group showed significantly lower bond strengths than did the other three groups. For all resin bonding systems, the bond strength significantly decreased after TC5000 (p<0.05).
Conclusions: The bond strengths of resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramic blocks varied greatly among manufacturers of resin bonding systems, which might be caused by the effectiveness of the silane coupling agent contained in each primer. Treatment with hydrofluoric acid may be desirable to obtain durable bonding of resin cements to lithium disilicate ceramic blocks.
