IADR Abstract Archives
Tensile Bond Strength of Zirconia to Titanium with Nine Cements
Objectives: The recent development of multiple self-adhesive resin cements has led to some unanswered phenomena regarding the bond strengths of these novel self-adhesive cements as compared to the traditional adhesive cements and resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC). This in vitro study was conducted to compare tensile bond strengths of nine commercially available luting cements.
Methods: Laboratory pressed 10 mm diameter zirconia disks (Tosho TZ-3YSB-E) and 7.9 mm diameter titanium cylinders were prepared (N=108) and cemented using the tested cements. Samples were divided into one of the 9 groups (n=12): CemEZ (Zest Dental), Multilink Automix SG (Ivoclar), NX3(Kerr), Panavia V5 (Kuraray), Maxcem Elite (Kerr), RelyX Unicem 2 (3M), TheraCem (Bisco), Ceramir (Doxa), ACTIVA Bioactive-cement (Pulpdent). After applying luting cements, the bonding interfaces were held under a constant load of 1390 grams for thirty minutes. After the cement completely set, the specimens were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 72 hours. The specimens were then subjected to tensile testing until the failure of the bonded interface between the zirconia disk and titanium rod using a universal mechanical tester (Instron 5566A). Individual specimens were evaluated using visual inspection and SEM for failure mode and cement residue. Tensile bond strength data were compared by one-way ANOVA using JMP Pro 14.
Results: The mean tensile bond strengths of tested cements are shown in the figure. There is significant difference among the tensile bond strengths of the tested materials. Additionally, a less percentage of cement residue of specimens corresponded to lower bond strength.
Conclusions: In general, the adhesive luting agents exhibited significantly higher tensile bond strength than the self-adhesive luting agents that exhibited significantly higher tensile bond strength than RMGIC. Different brands of cements in the same category may show significant different bond strength.
Methods: Laboratory pressed 10 mm diameter zirconia disks (Tosho TZ-3YSB-E) and 7.9 mm diameter titanium cylinders were prepared (N=108) and cemented using the tested cements. Samples were divided into one of the 9 groups (n=12): CemEZ (Zest Dental), Multilink Automix SG (Ivoclar), NX3(Kerr), Panavia V5 (Kuraray), Maxcem Elite (Kerr), RelyX Unicem 2 (3M), TheraCem (Bisco), Ceramir (Doxa), ACTIVA Bioactive-cement (Pulpdent). After applying luting cements, the bonding interfaces were held under a constant load of 1390 grams for thirty minutes. After the cement completely set, the specimens were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 72 hours. The specimens were then subjected to tensile testing until the failure of the bonded interface between the zirconia disk and titanium rod using a universal mechanical tester (Instron 5566A). Individual specimens were evaluated using visual inspection and SEM for failure mode and cement residue. Tensile bond strength data were compared by one-way ANOVA using JMP Pro 14.
Results: The mean tensile bond strengths of tested cements are shown in the figure. There is significant difference among the tensile bond strengths of the tested materials. Additionally, a less percentage of cement residue of specimens corresponded to lower bond strength.
Conclusions: In general, the adhesive luting agents exhibited significantly higher tensile bond strength than the self-adhesive luting agents that exhibited significantly higher tensile bond strength than RMGIC. Different brands of cements in the same category may show significant different bond strength.
3312374_File000000.jpg