Effect of two abrasive systems on resin bonding to laboratory-processed indirect resin composite restorations.
OBJECTIVE
This study compared two methods of surface roughening or preparation, with or without the use of proprietary surface wetting agents, to evaluate their effect on resin cement adhesion to the following laboratory-processed, indirect restorations: Artglass (AG), belleGlass HP (BG), Concept (C), and Targis (T). Methods of surface roughening or preparation included microetching with aluminum oxide (AO): 50 microns at 34 psi and silanized silica coating, CoJet-Sand (CJ): 30 microns at 34 psi. Artglass and Concept were tested with and without the use of their respective surface wetting agents: Artglass Liquid (AGL) and Special Bond II (SB).


METHODS
One hundred twenty specimens, each consisting of a pair of cylinders (7.0 x 3 mm and 4.3 x 3 mm) were fabricated. The larger cylinder or base was embedded in self-curing resin in a phenolic ring, and bonding surfaces were finished with 320-grit silicon carbide paper. Specimen pairs for each restorative material were randomly assigned to treatment groups (n = 10) and received the following surface treatments prior to cementation: group 1 (AG/AO/+AGL), group 2 (AG/AO/-AGL), group 3 (AG/CJ/+AGL), group 4 (AG/CJ/-AGL), group 5 (BG/AO), group 6 (BG/CJ), group 7 (C/AO/+SB), group 8 (C/AO/-SB), group 9 (C/CJ/+SB), group 10 (C/CJ/-SB), group 11 (T/AO), and group 12 (T/CJ). Specimen pairs were cemented with a dual-cure resin cement (Dual) and a standardized force of 1 MPa. Specimens were light-cured 40 seconds per side (80 s total), then thermocycled 300 times at between 5 degrees and 55 degrees C. Shear bond strengths (MPa) were determined using a Zwick Materials Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm per minute.


RESULTS
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's multiple range test (alpha = 0.05) by restoration type indicated no significant differences in shear bond strength between BG group 5 (29.8 +/- 5.8), BG group 6 (28.3 +/- 4.3), T group 11 (29.3 +/- 4.9), and T group 12 (29.0 +/- 4.4). Shear bond strength in AG group 3 (35.9 +/- 3.4) was significantly higher than in AG group 4 (32.4 +/- 4.0) and equal to that in AG group 2 (31.9 +/- 3.9) and AG group 1 (30.0 +/- 3.6). Shear bond strength in C group 10 (24.8 +/- 5.7) was equal to that in C group 9 (21.5 +/- 2.9), but was higher than in C groups 7 (19.4 +/- 3.1) and 8 (19.3 +/- 3.4).


CONCLUSIONS
Under the conditions of this study, the combination of CoJet-Sand and Artglass Liquid resulted in the highest bond strength for Artglass restorations. Microetching with CoJet-Sand or aluminum oxide followed by wetting with an unfilled adhesive was an effective surface pretreatment for dual-cure resin cementation of the four proprietary indirect resin-ceromer restorations tested.
Bouschlicher
M R
MR
Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Iowa, College of Dentistry, Iowa City, USA. murray-bouschlicher@uiowa.edu
Cobb
D S
DS
Vargas
M A
MA
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002516:Ceramics; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D007284:Inlays; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D011897:Random Allocation; D019279:Resin Cements; D012821:Silanes; D012823:Silicate Cement; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013499:Surface Properties; D013718:Tensile Strength
D003188:Composite Resins; C069352:Concept resin; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; D012821:Silanes; C110370:belleGlass; C111841:ceromer; C111282:dental polyglass; D012823:Silicate Cement