The Micro-Shear bond strength of different cements to commercially pure titanium

The effect of three dental cement types on the corrosion of dental implant surfaces

Statement of problem

One of the main challenges facing dental implant success is peri-implantitis. Recent evidence indicates that titanium (Ti) corrosion products and undetected-residual cement are potential risk factors for peri-implantitis. The literature on the impact of various types of dental cement on Ti corrosion is very limited.

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the influence of dental cement on Ti corrosion as a function of cement amount and type.

Materials and methods

Thirty commercially pure Ti grade 4 discs (19 × 7mm) were polished to mirror-shine (Ra ≈ 40 nm). Samples were divided into 10 groups (n = 3) as a cement type and amount function. The groups were no-cement as control, TempBond NE (TB3mm, TB5mm, and TB8mm), FujiCEM-II (FC3mm, FC5mm, and FC8mm), and Panavia-F-2.0 (PC3mm, PC5mm, and PC8mm). Tafel's method estimated corrosion rate (icorr) and corresponding potential (Ecorr) from potentiodynamic curves. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) data was utilized to obtain Nyquist and Bode plots. An equivalent electrical circuit estimated polarization resistance (Rp) and double-layer capacitance (Cdl). Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis was conducted to analyze the electrolyte solution after corrosion. pH measurements of the electrolyte were recorded before and after corrosion tests. Finally, the corroded surface was characterized by a 3D white-light microscope and scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was conducted using either one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's Post Hoc test or Kruskal-Wallis followed by Dunn's test based on data distribution.

Results

Based on cement amount, FC and PC significantly increased icorr in higher amounts (FC8mm-icorr = 8.22 × 10-8A/cm2, PC8mm-icorr = 5.61 × 10-8A/cm2) compared to control (3.35 × 10-8A/cm2). In contrast, TB3mm decreased icorr significantly compared to the control. As a function of cement type, FC increased icorr the most. EIS data agrees with these observations. Finally, corroded surfaces had higher surface roughness (Ra) compared to non-corroded surfaces.

Conclusion

The study indicated that cement types FC and PC led to increased Ti-corrosion as a function of a higher amount. Hence, the implant stability could be impacted by the selection, excessive cement, and a potentially increased risk of peri-implantitis.

Shear Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Bonded with Various Surface-Treated Titanium

Purpose

Retention is one of the most important factors for fixed dental prostheses, especially in implant dentistry. Accordingly, the goal of this study was to evaluate the level of shear bond strength between titanium (Ti) subjected to different surface treatments and lithium disilicate glass-ceramics.

Materials and Methods

In this work, 90 titanium alloy specimens were divided into six groups as follows: the control group (CT), 50 μm alumina airborne-particle abrasion group (SB), silica-coated group (CJ), anodization group (AN), anodization followed by alumina 50 μm airborne-particle abrasion group (ANSB), and anodization followed by silica coating group (ANCJ). Titanium specimens were bonded to lithium disilicate specimens with resin cement (Multilink N). The specimens were restored in water at 37°C for 24 h, and then, shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed using a universal testing machine (Shimadzu, Japan). The SBS values were statistically analyzed. The failure mode of the debonded titanium was classified after viewing the samples under a stereoscope.

Results

The results demonstrated that the mean SBSs of CT and AN were significantly lower than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). The SB group showed the highest SBS (29.47 ± 2.41 MPa); however, there was no significant difference between SB, ANSB, ANCJ, and CJ. The stereoscopic analysis demonstrated that the failure mode of AN was predominantly adhesive failure; whereas, the other groups showed cohesive and mixed failures.

Conclusions

In this study, it was found that the surface treatment with 50 μm alumina airborne-particle abrasion, silica coating with Cojet™ sand, anodization followed by 50 μm alumina airborne-particle abrasion, and anodization followed by silica coating with Cojet™ sand improved the SBS between titanium and lithium disilicate luted with Multilink N resin cement.

The Evaluation of Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Titanium Using Different Surface Treatment Methods: An In Vitro Study

This study attempted to investigate the effect of sandblasting and H2O2 treatments on the microshear bond strength of two commercially available resin cements. A total of 90 cube-shaped specimens of commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) were divided into two groups of Panavia and MHA cements (n = 45). Samples of the Panavia group were randomly divided into three subgroups of 15 samples, including subgroups (no treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and immersion in 35% hydrogen peroxide solution with halogen light). Once the treatment was completed, Panavia V5 was applied on the cp-Ti surface by a Tygon tube. The 45 specimens of the MHA cement group were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 15) similarly to the Panavia group. Then, the MHA was applied on the surface of cp-Ti. A universal testing machine was used to measure and examine the microshear bond strength of cement to cp-Ti subsequent to the step of thermocycling. According to results, in the Panavia cement group, the SBS of sandblasting treatment was significantly higher than that of the H2O2 treatment subgroup (p < 0.05), which displayed a significantly higher SBS than that of the no-treatment subgroup (p < 0.001). In regard to the MHA group, the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the sandblasting treatment subgroup (p < 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences between the SBS of the no treatment and H2O2 treatment subgroups (p = 0.35). Considering the comparison between Panavia and MHA cases, there were no significant differences observed among the no-treatment subgroups (p = 0.34), as well as the sandblasting treatment subgroups (p = 0.67), while the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup in Panavia cement was higher than that of the H2O2 subgroup in MHA cement (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in both Panavia V5 and MHA cements, sandblasting treatment could improve the bond strength between the titanium surface. However, H2O2 treatment proved to be capable of enhancing the bond strength of Panavia V5 cement without causing any positive effects on the bond strength of MHA cement.