IADR Abstract Archives
Bond Durability of Three Bonded Resin Cements to E.max CAD
Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the bond durability of three bonded resin cements including NX3 (Kerr), Multilink Automix NG (Ivoclar Vivadent), and Panavia V5 (Kuraray), when bonded to IPS e.max CAD substrate.
Methods: Dental substrates were embedded in cold-cure acrylics. The substrates were polished with 240-grit and 600-grit SiC paper, and then sandblasted with 50 mm Al2O3 powder at 30 psi. Prior to bonding, e.max surface was etched with HF acid (CERAM-ETCH). Each cement was bonded to the prepared substrate’s surface with either a ceramic primer or an adhesive per IFU. Shear bonding test specimens were prepared using a cylindrical mold (D=2.38mm) and tested following ISO 29022. Each cement was allowed to self-cure. The specimens (n=6) were then stored in DI-water at 37°C for 24 hours and then either (i) debonded (initial SBS) or (ii) further subjected to thermal-cycling (TC, 5,000 cycles of 5°C/55°C) and then debonded. The bond durability of each cement product was evaluated by comparing initial SBS with SBS after TC.
Results: The mean SBS before and after TC were summarized in the table below. One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to study the statistical differences among the groups. ANOVA analysis revealed that 1) the initial SBS of the three cementation systems are not statistically different from each other (p>0.05), 2) after TC, the SBS of NX3/XTR system is not statistically different than Multilink/Monobond Plus system, but statistically higher than Panavia V5/Clearfil Ceramic Primer, 3) None of the cementation systems showed statistical difference in SBS before and after TC. NX3/XTR system showed the smallest decrease in SBS after TC.
Conclusions: NX3/XTR adhesive exhibited superior bond durability to IPS e.max CAD substrate among three cementation systems studied with the smallest decrease in bond strength after thermocycling. NX3/XTR adhesive also yielded the highest bond strength among three cementation systems both before and after thermocycling. Furthermore, the GPDM-based XTR adhesive is proven to be effective as a ceramic primer.
Methods: Dental substrates were embedded in cold-cure acrylics. The substrates were polished with 240-grit and 600-grit SiC paper, and then sandblasted with 50 mm Al2O3 powder at 30 psi. Prior to bonding, e.max surface was etched with HF acid (CERAM-ETCH). Each cement was bonded to the prepared substrate’s surface with either a ceramic primer or an adhesive per IFU. Shear bonding test specimens were prepared using a cylindrical mold (D=2.38mm) and tested following ISO 29022. Each cement was allowed to self-cure. The specimens (n=6) were then stored in DI-water at 37°C for 24 hours and then either (i) debonded (initial SBS) or (ii) further subjected to thermal-cycling (TC, 5,000 cycles of 5°C/55°C) and then debonded. The bond durability of each cement product was evaluated by comparing initial SBS with SBS after TC.
Results: The mean SBS before and after TC were summarized in the table below. One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to study the statistical differences among the groups. ANOVA analysis revealed that 1) the initial SBS of the three cementation systems are not statistically different from each other (p>0.05), 2) after TC, the SBS of NX3/XTR system is not statistically different than Multilink/Monobond Plus system, but statistically higher than Panavia V5/Clearfil Ceramic Primer, 3) None of the cementation systems showed statistical difference in SBS before and after TC. NX3/XTR system showed the smallest decrease in SBS after TC.
Conclusions: NX3/XTR adhesive exhibited superior bond durability to IPS e.max CAD substrate among three cementation systems studied with the smallest decrease in bond strength after thermocycling. NX3/XTR adhesive also yielded the highest bond strength among three cementation systems both before and after thermocycling. Furthermore, the GPDM-based XTR adhesive is proven to be effective as a ceramic primer.