Simplified Surface Treatments for Ceramic Cementation: Use of Universal Adhesive and Self-Etching Ceramic Primer

Comparison of self-etching and conventional bifunctional coupling agent in lithium disilicate ceramic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of self-etching primers in comparison to the conventional protocol with hydrofluoric acid and silane treatment for bonding lithium disilicate ceramics.

Material and Methods

The formulated PICO question for this research was: "Does self-etching silane primer surface treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics present a similar bond strength value compared to conventional hydrofluoric acid and silane treatment?". Combinations of words and appropriate truncations were adapted for each database. For the selection, duplicate articles were systematically eliminated using Mendeley software. The Cohen's Kappa statistic was then computed, RoBDEMAT questions were addressed, and the meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4, at a significance level of 5%.

Results

Two independent reviewers conducted a blind and independent analysis of 190219 articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey. Subsequently, they extracted data from 21 studies for the systematic review and in 16 the meta-analysis. In all in vitro studies, the most frequently cited concentration of hydrofluoric acid was 5%. In the meta-analysis, no statistical differences were observed between the two treatments concerning bond strength.

Conclusions

Self-etching silane primers demonstrate promising results in lithium disilicate bonding, suggesting their potential as an alternative surface treatment to hydrofluoric acids + silane. Key words:Lithium disilicate, Hydrofluoric acid, Dental Porcelain, Ceramics, Silanes.

Effect of universal adhesives and self-etch ceramic primers on bond strength to glass-ceramics: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

To simplify dental procedures, multicomponent products such as universal adhesives and self-etch ceramic primers have been recommended for glass-ceramic bonding; however, studies have shown a wide range of results.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the in vitro bond strength promoted by hydrofluoric acid+silane-containing universal adhesives and a self-etch ceramic primer to glass-ceramics and compare it with that of conventional treatments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science databases up to April 2021. In vitro studies assessing the resin-mediated bond to glass-ceramics by using a self-etch ceramic primer and hydrofluoric acid+silane-containing universal adhesives and/or compared with traditional hydrofluoric acid+glass-ceramic primers were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk-of-bias analysis were performed. Statistical analysis was performed by using a review management software program using a random effects model (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 26 studies in the quantitative analysis. Bond strength to lithium disilicate ceramic was higher when a hydrofluoric acid+glass-ceramic primer was used than when using a hydrofluoric acid+silane-containing universal adhesive (P<.05), except when 9% to 10% acid concentration was used in combination with static aging (P=.100). A self-etch ceramic primer promoted bond strength values to lithium disilicate that were similar to those of the hydrofluoric acid+glass-ceramic primer (P>.100).

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrofluoric acid+silane-containing universal adhesive was not as effective as the hydrofluoric acid+glass-ceramic primer in promoting bond strength to glass-ceramic. Bond strength values generated by a self-etch ceramic primer to glass-ceramic were similar to those generated by the conventional treatment.

Effect of different surface treatment protocols on the bond strength between lithium disilicate and resin cements

Because the use of hydrofluoric acid (HF) poses health risks if handled improperly, many clinicians prefer to have the ceramic restorations pre-etched in dental laboratories. However, during the try-in procedure, the pre-etched glass-ceramic restorations may be contaminated with saliva resulting in reduced bond strength. This in-vitro study aimed to investigate the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of lithium disilicate (LD) glass-ceramic restorations (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) to two resin cements. One-hundred eighty blocks (4X4X3mm) of LD glass-ceramic were divided into twelve groups (n = 15), of which six received Variolink Esthetic DC (VE) cement and six received RelyX Ultimate (RU) cement, following the surface treatments: G1) Control: Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane (HF + Sil); G2) Hydrofluoric Acid + Saliva + Silane (HF + S + Sil); G3) Hydrofluoric Acid + Saliva + Ivoclean + Silane (HF + S + IC + Sil); G4) Hydrofluoric Acid + Saliva + Phosphoric Acid + Silane (HF + S + P + Sil); G5) Hydrofluoric Acid + Saliva + Monobond Etch & Prime (HF + S + EP); G6) Monobond Etch & Prime (EP). Following treatment, a resin-cement cylinder (2.3 mm diameter) was built on the glass-ceramic surface, photocured (20 s), stored in distilled water (37 °C, 24 h) and submitted to the shear bond strength test. Bond strength data (MPa) were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey (α = 0.01). Cement type and surface treatment had a significant effect on the bond strength (p < 0.001) (Table 4). Single-step Monobond Etch & Prime (EP) significantly improved the bond strength of resin-cements to glass-ceramic with and without saliva contamination.

Influence of surface treatments and adhesive protocols on repair bond strength of glass-matrix and resin-matrix CAD/CAM ceramics

OBJECTIVE

To specify the effects of self-etching ceramic primer, Monobond Etch and Prime (MEP), and universal adhesive (UA) on repair bond strength between CAD/CAM blocks and resin composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Vita Mark II (VM), IPS e.max CAD (EMAX), Shofu Block HC (SHC), and Tetric CAD (TET) blocks were sliced and thermocycled. They were divided into four groups according to surface treatments (n = 24): control, sandblasting (AL), hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), and MEP application. SEM analysis assessed surface topography. Subdivided, specimens followed distinct adhesive protocols (n = 12): control (silane + adhesive [SA] or adhesive [A] only for MEP group) and UA. Microshear bond strength (μSBS) was measured following resin composite repair. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The μSBS of CAD/CAM blocks was significantly influenced by surface treatment type and adhesive protocol. The highest μSBS values for each block, considering surface treatment + adhesive protocol, were VM, HF + SA, or HF + UA; EMAX, MEP + A; and SHC and TET, AL + SA, or AL + UA.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for EMAX, it was not the adhesive protocol that made the significant difference in bond strength for each CAD/CAM block, but the surface treatment. MEP + UA application on glass ceramics lowered μSBS values significantly, so it is not recommended in clinical conditions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Repair is an essential therapeutic option, particularly in esthetic restorations, to swiftly repair the impaired esthetics caused by fracture. Repair protocol is dependent on the restorative material, and to have a reliable repair bond strength, the following surface treatment and adhesive protocol combinations are recommended for each CAD/CAM block: VM, HF + SA, or HF + UA; EMAX, MEP + A; and SHC and TET, AL + SA, or AL + UA.

Influence of Mono- and Multiwave Light-curing Units on the Microhardness and Degree of Conversion of Light-cured Resin Cements

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the Knoop hardness (KH, N/mm2) and degree of conversion (DC, %) on the margins of light-cured resin cements with different photoinitiators using a single light-curing unit (LCU) with two heads (mono- and multiwave).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three types of resin cements were used with different photoinitiators: Megalink Esthetic (Odontomega, São Paulo, Brazil) with a camphorquinone photoinitiator; Allcem Veneer (FGM, Joinville, Brazil) with the Advanced Polymerization system (APS), and Variolink Esthetic LC (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Thirty samples were collected and divided into six groups (n=5 each). The resin cement samples were made into the shape of a maxillary right central incisor and photoactivated under a 0.5-mm-thick ceramic sheet. A single LCU (Radii Xpert, SDI) with two heads (mono- and multiwave) was used. The tip of the LCU was positioned at the center of the sample in a standardized manner. Raman spectroscopy was performed to evaluate the DC, and KH was evaluated through the Knoop microhardness test. Five regions were evaluated: cervical, mesial, buccal (center), distal, and incisal.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the DC only for the type of cement (p<0.001), indicating that the cement with the APS photoinitiator presented excellent results. There were significant differences in the type of cement (p<0.001), type of light (p<0.001), region (p<0.001), and the interaction between the type of cement and type of light (p<0.001). The resin cement with the APS photoinitiator cured with monowave light showed the highest KH values. The beam profiles of all groups, with and without the interposition of ceramic and resin cement, were examined by light transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

The cement with the APS photoinitiator presented the best results with respect to the DC and KH. In comparison with mono- and multiwaves, the LCU may not be a determining factor for the properties of light-cured resin cements. The buccal region showed the best results for DC and KH, indicating the need for a greater amount of light-curing at the cementation margins.

Bonding stability of universal adhesives to feldspathic ceramic with or without prior silane application

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the bonding stability of three universal adhesives to a CAD-CAM feldspathic ceramic with or without prior silane application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The universal adhesives tested were Ambar Universal (FGM), Single Bond Universal (3M), and Ybond Universal (Yller). Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (3M) was used as a control. The silane used was RelyX Ceramic Primer (3M). Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to Vitablocs Mark II was measured after 24 h or 6 months of water aging (n = 20). Failure modes were observed through scanning electron microscopy, and pH and degree of C=C conversion (DC) of the adhesives were measured (n = 3). Data were analyzed using one-, two-, and three-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The pH values differed significantly among the adhesives (p < 0.001), while the DC was similar (p = 0.141). The universal adhesives showed significant differences in μTBS, with higher immediate results when using silane and lower results after aging. Notably, a significant decrease in μTBS was observed after 6 months when silane was applied. In contrast, the control adhesive exhibited consistent results between the 24-h and 6-month storage periods. The universal adhesives showed a decrease in μTBS ranging from 25.5% to 40.1% after prolonged storage. Adhesive failures were predominant in all groups. The presence or absence of silane in the adhesive composition did not affect the bonding performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a separate silane coupling agent improved the immediate bond strength of universal adhesives to CAD-CAM feldspathic ceramic. However, this bond strength significantly decreased after 6 months of water aging. The bond strength remained stable for universal adhesives when applied without silane after 6 months of aging.

Ceramic Bonding Interface under Shear-Compression Stress: Ultra-High-Speed Imaging Contribution

The aim of this study is to visualize and characterize by ultra-high-speed imaging (UHSI) the failure phenomena at the resin-ceramic bonding interface of lithium disilicate (LiSi2) samples bonded with gold-standard protocol (Monobond Plus [MB]) and the nontoxic one (Monobond Etch & Prime [MEP]) subjected to mechanical loading. Unprecedented frame rate, image resolution, and recording time were reached by using the most advanced UHSI camera. The finite element analysis (FEA) of the proposed mechanical test confirmed that the specific design of our samples enables a combined shear and compression stress state, prone to test the bonding interface while being close to physiological stresses. Ten LiSi2 samples were pretreated by gold standard (MB, n = 5) and self-etching primer (MEP, n = 5). Axial compression loading gradually increased until catastrophic failure was performed. As shown by the FEA, the angle between the bonding interface and load direction leads to shear-compression stresses at the resin-ceramic bonding interface. Failure was recorded by UHSI at 300,000 fps. All recorded images were analyzed to segregate events and isolate the origin of fracture. For the first time, thanks to the image recording setup, it was observed that debonding is the first event before breakage, highlighting that sample fracture occurs by interfacial rupture followed by slippage and cohesive failure of materials. Failure mode could be described as mixed. MEP and MB showed similar results and behavior.

Bonding CAD/CAM materials with current adhesive systems: An overview

Objective

Data sources

Results

Conclusion

Do you know your ceramics? Part 3: lithium disilicate

Lithium disilicate has become very popular and is very commonly used, especially for highly aesthetic cases. It has also proven to be a very durable material and can be used in a variety of clinical situations. It is important as a clinician, technician or ceramist to be able to confidently use this material by appreciating the detail in its construction. The microstructure has a significant impact on the optical and physical properties of this material. Hence, before the prescription of this type of restoration, it is imperative to be knowledgeable in this aspect. This article explores lithium disilicate as a dental ceramic material in detail.

Effect of active application of self-etching ceramic primer on the long-term bond strength of different dental CAD/CAM materials

Background

The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of the active application of self-etching ceramic primer (ME&P) on the bond strength of different dental CAD/CAM materials (Lithium Disilicate ceramic (LD), Leucite ceramic (LE), Zirconia reinforced lithium silicate ceramic (ZLS), and Hybrid ceramic (HC)) with thermocycling aging.

Material and Methods

The samples were randomly divided into 16 groups (n = 20). Dual resin cement cylinders were made and light cured for 10 s (1.200 mW/cm2) for the shear bond strength test. 3-way ANOVA revealed that the factors were statistically significant (P< 0.05).

Results

The aging process had a negative impact on the bond strength for all groups except for Lithium Disilicate, with active application. ZLS and LE showed promising results with high bond strength values for the ME&P active application; however, after aging the bond strength value was significantly reduced. HC showed reduced bond strength values regardless the ME&P application.

Conclusions

In order to obtain a durable bond strength, the recommended protocol of 20 s of active application followed by 40 s of sitting time in the self-etching ceramic primer should be followed when using reinforced-glass ceramics as restorative materials.

Key words:Dentistry, dental materials, silane, shear strength, computer-aided design

The effect of different ceramic surface treatments on the repair bond strength of resin composite to lithium disilicate ceramic

This study aimed to evaluate the bonding abilities and long-term durability of different repair agents when applied to lithium disilicate ceramics (LDS). Blocks of IPS e.max CAD were prepared and divided into four groups according to the surface treatment: Monobond Etch & Prime (ME), K-etchant GEL+Clearfil Universal Bond (UB), Bondmer Lightless (BL), and K-etchant GEL+G-Multi Primer (GMP). All treated ceramic specimens were bonded to resin composite and light-cured. The micro-shear bond strength was measured after 24 h of water storage or 5,000 thermocycles. ME and BL showed significantly higher initial bond strengths than UB and GMP (p<0.05). After 5,000 thermocycles, there was no significant difference in ME (p>0.05), but BL and GMP showed considerable reduction in bond strength (p<0.05); moreover, the samples of UB were all de-bonded before testing. ME and BL proved to be effective surface treatment materials for LDS.

Adhesive luting to hybrid ceramic and resin composite CAD/CAM Blocks:Er:YAG Laser versus chemical etching and micro-abrasion pretreatment

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of Er:YAG laser on the roughness, surface topography, and bond strength to resin luting cement based on chemical and micro-abrasion pretreatments of different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing materials.

METHODS

A polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network (PICN) material (Vita Enamic, VE), three indirect resin composite (Cerasmart, CS; Shofu HC, SH; Lava Ultimate, LU), and one lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, EM) blocks were subjected to one of the following pretreatments: no treatment (NC ), Er:YAG etching with one of two powers (either 3 or 6 W), hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, self-etching ceramic primer (ME), or micro-abrasion (MA). The shear bond strength (SBS) of resin luting cement to pretreated materials was tested. Surface roughness was measured via atomic force microscopy, and surface topography was analyzed via scanning electron microscopy. Two-way analysis of variance, Tukey post-hoc test, and Pearson correlation were applied.

RESULTS

Etching EM and VE with HF or the ME resulted in the highest SBS values in their groups (P < 0.05). LU, SH, VE, and CS indicated similar SBS values when treated with 3 W, 6 W, and MA. The highest surface roughness (Sa ) values were obtained for the LU, CS, and VE groups when treated with 6 W, whereas the lowest Sa values were obtained for CS when treated with the ME and EM when treated with the ME or 3 W. Only SH and CS indicated a significant correlation between surface rough ness and bond strength.

CONCLUSIONS

Er:YAG laser etching is comparable to micro-abrasion when treating resin composite blocks and may induce fewer surface cracks. HF etching remains the gold standard for the treatment of glass-based ceramics and PICNs.