Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates.
BACKGROUND
When clinical fractures of the ceramic veneer on ceramometal can be repaired, the need for remake can be eliminated or postponed. A number of ceramic repair materials are available; bond strength data would be useful for predicting the success of a given repair system.


OBJECTIVE
This in vitro study evaluated shear bond strengths of 2 porcelain repair systems intended for intraoral bonding of resin to porcelain and metal.


METHODS
Sixty cylindrical specimens were fabricated with feldspathic porcelain and/or a high noble alloy: 20 porcelain (P), 20 porcelain and metal (PM), and 20 metal (M). Specimens were divided into subgroups of 10, and resin composite cylinders were bonded with 1 of 2 systems: CoJet-System (CJ) or Ceramic Repair (CR). Bonded specimens were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 hours before being thermocycled at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C for 300 cycles with a 30-second dwell time. The specimens then were stored for an additional 8 days before being subjected to shear force in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Stress at failure was calculated in MPa, and mode of failure was recorded. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the data. Comparisons between substrates were made with the Duncan multiple range test (P <.05), and differences between the 2 repair systems within like substrate groups were examined with the Student t test.


RESULTS
Bonding groups exhibited the following values in megapascals: PM-CR = 19.3 +/- 4.1; PM-CJ = 25.0 +/- 3.1; M-CR = 14.3 +/- 4.9; M-CJ = 23.0 +/- 2.3; P-CR = 18.3 +/- 4.2; P-CJ = 22.4 +/- 5.6. The ANOVA results showed significant differences between the CJ and CR groups. The Student t test revealed that the mean data for the CJ groups were significantly higher than for the CR groups (P <.05). The Duncan multiple range test demonstrated significant differences between the PM and M groups (P <.05) for the CR system only.


CONCLUSIONS
Under the conditions of this study, CJ achieved significantly higher bond strengths to PM and M substrates. Significant differences in strength were found between PM and M, but only within the CR system.
Haselton
D R
DR
College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. debra-haselton@uiowa.edu
Diaz-Arnold
A M
AM
Dunne
J T
JT
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000179:Acrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D000269:Adhesives / Q000737:chemistry; D000538:Aluminum Silicates / Q000737:chemistry; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D003776:Dental Porcelain / Q000737:chemistry*; D017269:Dental Prosthesis Repair; D003801:Dental Veneers; D006047:Gold Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D016876:Metal Ceramic Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D017680:Potassium Compounds / Q000737:chemistry; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013696:Temperature; D013816:Thermodynamics; D013997:Time Factors; D014867:Water
D000179:Acrylates; D000180:Acrylic Resins; D000269:Adhesives; D000538:Aluminum Silicates; D003188:Composite Resins; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003738:Dental Cements; D006047:Gold Alloys; D016876:Metal Ceramic Alloys; D008689:Methacrylates; C076808:Monobond S; D017680:Potassium Compounds; C121818:Tetric ceram; D014867:Water; C046981:ESPE Visio-Gem; D003776:Dental Porcelain; C016447:feldspar; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C040415:heliobond; C081713:Visio-Bond