Effect of surface conditioning and taper angle on the retention of IPS e.max Press crowns

Retentive Strength of CAD/CAM-Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns Luted on Titanium Implant Abutments Using Different Ceramic Materials and Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the retentive strength of monolithic hybrid-all-ceramic crowns luted on titanium implant abutments. Material and Methods: In total, 450 crowns (75 each of Mark II, Empress CAD, e.max CAD, Suprinity, Enamic, Celtra Duo) were milled using a CAD/CAM system. The crowns were cemented onto sandblasted titanium implant abutments using five luting agents (Multilink Implant, Variolink II, RelyX Unicem, Fujicem, and Panavia 2.0). After thermocycling was performed (5000 cycles: 5−55 °C, 30-s dwell time), the crowns were removed using a universal testing machine. The location of luting-agent residue on the abutment and inner crown surfaces was evaluated. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni correction were performed to evaluate differences of retentive strength depending on the crown material and the kind of the luting agent. Results: The retentive strengths for the different ceramic materials were Vita Mark II: 652N-759N (SD:134N-146N), Empress CAD: 681N-822N (SD: 89N-146N), e.max CAD: 784N-1044N (SD: 109N-176N), Vita Enamic: 716N-1177N (SD: 132N-220N), Vita Suprinity: 867N-1488N (SD: 202N-278N), and Celtra Duo 772N-1335N (SD:151N-229N). After the removal trials, the visual documentation showed different adhesive residue location depending on the ceramic materials. Furthermore, the pull-off force was dependent on the choice of adhesives. No significant differences were found between different luting agents and the ceramic material Vita Mark II and Empress CAD. EmaxCAD showed significant differences with Unicem and FujiCem compared to Panavia, as did VitaSuprinity, VitaEnamic, and Celtra Duo (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The ceramic material used seems to influence the retentive strength and the use of certain luting agents results in a higher retentive strength for some ceramic materials.

Effect of Different Surface Treatment Methods on Bond Strength of Dental Ceramics to Dental Hard Tissues: A Systematic Review

For long-term successful use of ceramic materials in dental procedures, it is necessary to ensure reliable bonding of restorations to dental substrates. This can be achieved by the application of a proper luting cement and through additional surface conditioning. The present systematic review summarizes the most up-to-date evidence on the use of different surface modification methods to enhance the bond strength of dental ceramics to the hard tissues of the teeth. The authors of the review searched the Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases to identify relevant articles published between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2020. A total of 4892 records were identified, and after screening, the full text of 159 articles was evaluated, which finally resulted in the inclusion of 19 studies. The available reports were found to be heterogeneous in terms of materials and methodology, and therefore, only within-studies comparison was performed instead of comparison between studies. A statistically significant difference in the bond strength between the samples treated with different methods of surface conditioning, or between conditioned and nonconditioned samples, was revealed by most of the studies. Predominantly, the studies showed that a combination of mechanical and chemical methods was the most effective way of enhancing bond strength. Artificial aging and luting cement were also identified as the factors significantly influencing bond strength.

Adhesion of 10-MDP containing resin cements to dentin with and without the etch-and-rinse technique

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the adhesion of 10-MDP containing self-etch and self-adhesive resin cements to dentin with and without the use of etch-and-rinse technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Human third molars (N=180) were randomly divided into 6 groups (n=30 per group). Conventional (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray-PAN) and self-adhesive resin cements (Clearfil SA, Kuraray-CSA) were bonded to dentin surfaces either after application of 3-step etch-and-rinse (35% H₃PO₄ + ED Primer) or two-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil SE Bond). Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test using the universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). The failure types were analyzed using a stereomicroscope and quality of hybrid layer was observed under a scanning electron microscope. The data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

Overall, PAN adhesive cement showed significantly higher mean bond strength (12.5 ± 2.3 - 14.1 ± 2.4 MPa) than CSA cement (9.3 ± 1.4 - 13.9 ± 1.9 MPa) (P<.001). Adhesive failures were more frequent in CSA cement groups when used in conjunction with two-step self-adhesive (68%) or no adhesive at all (66%). Hybrid layer quality was inferior in CSA compared to PAN cement in all conditions.

CONCLUSION

In clinical situations where bonding to dentin substrate is crucial, both conventional and self-adhesive resin cements based on 10-MDP can benefit from etch-and-rinse technique to achieve better quality of adhesion in the early clinical period.