Bonding to silicate ceramics: Conventional technique compared with a simplified technique

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 thickness and surface conditioning on fracture resistance of occlusal veneer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the current study was to assess the impact of restoration thickness, surface conditioning and the interaction between them on the fracture resistance of CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate occlusal veneers.

METHODS

A total of 42 maxillary molars were prepared to receive CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate occlusal veneer either with 0.5 mm (n = 21) or 1 mm (n = 21) thickness. Each main group was divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7), according to surface treatment, HF acid (HF-1, HF-0.5), acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF-1, APF-0.5) and Monobond etch & prime (MON-1, MON-0.5). Multilinik N (Ivoclar-Vivadent) adhesive resin cement was used for bonding according to the manufacturer instructions. One hour after bonding, specimens were stored in water bath for 75 days followed by cyclic loading fatigue for 240,000 cycles to simulate clinical situation. Finally, specimens were fractured under compressive load in (N) using a universal testing machine. Two and one-way ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The means ± SD (N) fracture load for each group were calculated. MON-1 group showed the highest fracture load (1644.7 ± 155.3) followed by HF-1 group (1514.6 ± 212.5). Meanwhile, APF-0.5 showed the lowest fracture load (962 ± 249.6).

CONCLUSION

CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate occlusal veneers can be used with a thickness of 0.5 mm instead of conventional crowns. Monobond etch & prime is recommended as a surface treatment for CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate occlusal veneer due to biological hazards of Hydrofluoric acid.

Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets

Objective

The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods.

Material and methods

Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi² test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined.

Results

LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level.

Conclusions

MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary.

Clinical relevance

There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.

Comparison between Hydrofluoric Acid and Single-Component Primer as Conditioners on Resin Cement Adhesion to Lithium Silicate and Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics

This study aimed at evaluating the effects of different surface conditionings on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of a self-adhesive resin cement to VITA Suprinity (ZLS) and IPS e.max CAD (LD). Three surface conditioning protocols were performed on ZLS and LD before luting with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2, RXU): hydrofluoric acid (HF), HF + silane (HF + S), or Monobond Etch & Prime (EP). In each group, 15 cylindrical buildups of RXU were prepared on five milled bars and submitted to a µSBS test. Data were statistically analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05). Failure modes were recorded and classified as adhesive, mixed, cohesive in resin, or ceramic, and statistically analyzed with Fisher’s exact test (p = 0.05). One additional bar per group was used for the morphological characterization of the conditioned surface by means of SEM. The material per se did not significantly influence adhesion (p = 0.744). Conditioning protocol was a significant factor: EP yielded significantly higher μSBS than HF (p = 0.005), while no significant differences emerged between EP and HF + S (p = 0.107), or HF + S and HF (p = 0.387). The material-conditioning protocol interaction was not statistically significant (p = 0.109). Significant intergroup differences were found in distribution of failure modes: mixed failures were predominant in the ZLS/EP group, while the other groups showed a prevalence of adhesive failures. The self-etching primer showed promising results in terms of immediate bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement to lithium-silica-based glass ceramics, suggesting its alternative use to hydrofluoric acid and silane conditioning protocols.

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.

Two-year Follow-up of Ceramic Veneers and a Full Crown Treated With Self-etching Ceramic Primer: A Case Report

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The Monobond Etch & Prime seems to be an efficient option for adhesive cementation of ultrathin veneers and full crown ceramic with good properties after two years of clinical follow-up.

SUMMARY

The use of the self-etching ceramic primer combines the stages of acid conditioning and silanization in cementation procedures of ceramic restorations. The protocol is a simpler and safer alternative to the conventional protocol for surface treatment of silica-based ceramics. This case report describes the steps of an esthetic rehabilitation with ultrathin veneers and full crown based on lithium disilicate treated with a ceramic primer (Monobond Etch & Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). After two years of clinical follow-up, the restorations presented satisfactory esthetic and functional performance, color stability, surface and marginal integrity, and absence of cracks and debonding. More research is needed to investigate the clinical performance and longevity of the ceramic restorations treated with self-etching ceramic primers.

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

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of resin cement and lithium disilicate ceramic after various surface treatments of the ceramic. Sixty blocks of ceramic (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) were obtained. After cleaning, they were placed in polyvinyl chloride tubes with acrylic resin. The blocks were divided into six groups (n=10) depending on surface treatment: H/S/A - 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane + Adhesive, H/S -10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane, H/S/UA - 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Silane + Universal Adhesive, H/UA- 10% Hydrofluoric Acid + Universal Adhesive, MBEP/A - Monobond Etch & Prime + Adhesive, and MBEP - Monobond Etch & Prime. The light-cured resin cement (Variolink Esthetic LC, Ivoclar Vivadent) was inserted in a mold placed over the treated area of the ceramics and photocured with an LED for 20 s to produce cylinders (3 mm x 3 mm). The samples were subjected to a shear bond strength test in a universal test machine (Instron 5965) by 0.5 mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey tests showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p<0.05). The results of the shear strength test were H/S/A (9.61±2.50)^A, H/S (10.22±3.28)^A, H/S/UA (7.39±2.02)^ABC, H/UA (4.28±1.32)^C, MBEP/A (9.01±1.97)^AB, and MBEP (6.18±2.75)^BC. The H/S group showed cohesive failures, and the H/UA group was the only one that presented adhesive failures. The conventional treatment with hydrofluoric acid and silane showed the best bond strength. The use of a new ceramic primer associated with adhesive bonding obtained similar results to conventional surface treatment, being a satisfactory alternative to replace the use of hydrofluoric acid.

Effect of Decontamination and Cleaning on the Shear Bond Strength of High Translucency Zirconia

(1) Background: This study evaluated the bonding performance of high translucency zirconia after diverse surficial decontamination and cleaning procedures. (2) Methods: High translucency zirconia (Lava^TM Esthetic) specimens (2.0 mm × 20 mm × 10 mm) were exposed to different surface treatments prior to bonding to CoCr cylinders (d = 5 mm, height = 3 mm). All surfaces were sandblasted (40 µm aluminum oxide, 2 bar) and treated with alcohol (al), saliva (s), saliva + water (sw), or saliva + NaOCl + water (sn) before bonding was performed with the following adhesive luting systems: RelyX^TM Unicem 2 (RX), Scotchbond^TM Universal (SBU) + RelyX^TM Ultimate (RU) or Monobond Plus (MP) + Multilink^® Automix (ML). After 24 h, thermocycling (TC:12,000 × 5 °C/55 °C) and 90 days of storage at 37 °C in distilled water, the shear bond strength (SBS) was evaluated according to ISO/TS 11,405:2015. Failure modes along bonding areas were characterized. Means and standard deviations (n = 10 per group) were determined and statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA/Bonferroni (α = 0.05). (3) Results: The SBS after 24 h varied between 3.5 (sRX) and 69.4 MPa (snMP + ML). Values from 0 (sRX) to 70.3 MPa (swRX) were found after TC. Data after 90 days of storage showed the lowest values for sRX (0 MPa) and the highest values for alSBU + RU (75.5 MPa). Adhesive failure was noted at all aging conditions. (4) Conclusions: SBU + RU or RX and MP + ML including saliva decontamination of the ceramic surface with water or NaOCl + water allow efficient bonding to Lava^TM Esthetic.