title: In Vitro Comparison of the Bond Strength between Ceramic Repair Systems and Ceramic Materials and Evaluation of the Wettability.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  When fracture of an all-ceramic restoration occurs, it can be necessary to repair without removing the restoration. Although there are many studies about the repair of metal-ceramic restorations, there are few about all-ceramic restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength between ceramic repair systems and esthetic core materials and to evaluate the wettability of all-ceramic core materials.
  
  
  METHODS
  Disk-like specimens (N = 90) made of three dental ceramic infrastructure materials (zirconia ceramic, alumina ceramic, glass ceramic) were polished with silicon carbide paper, prepared for bonding (abrasion with 30 μm diamond rotary cutting instrument). Thirty specimens of each infrastructure were obtained. Each infrastructure group was divided into three subgroups; they were bonded using 3 repair systems: Bisco Intraoral Repair Kit, Cimara & Cimara Zircon Repair System, and Clearfil Repair System. After 1200 thermocycles, shear bond strength was measured in a universal testing machine at a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. In addition, the contact angle values of the infrastructures after surface treatments were examined for wettability. Data were analyzed by using ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Although there were no significant differences among the repair systems (p > 0.05) in the glass ceramic and zirconia groups, a significant difference was found among the repair systems in alumina infrastructure (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences among the infrastructures (p > 0.05); however, a statistically significant difference was found among the repair systems (p < 0.05). No difference was found among the infrastructures and repair systems in terms of contact angle values.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cimara & Cimara Zircon Repair System had higher bond strength values than the other repair systems. Although no difference was found among the infrastructures and repair systems, contact wettability angle was decreased by surface treatments compared with polished surfaces.
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, Pamukkale University, Faculty of Dentistry, Denizli, Turkey.
authors.forename: Hasan
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kocaağaoğlu
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, Erciyes University, Faculty of Dentistry, Kayseri, Turkey.
authors.forename: Taha
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Manav
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, Erciyes University, Faculty of Dentistry, Kayseri, Turkey.
authors.forename: Haydar
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Albayrak
mesh_terms: D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry*; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D017269:Dental Prosthesis Repair / Q000379:methods*; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D004955:Esthetics, Dental; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008422:Materials Testing; D008670:Metals / Q000737:chemistry; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D033081:Shear Strength; D013499:Surface Properties; D017155:Wettability; D015040:Zirconium / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: C480092:Clearfil repair; D003764:Dental Materials; D008670:Metals; D019279:Resin Cements; C023506:Glass ceramics; D015040:Zirconium; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; C028541:zirconium oxide
keywords: Alumina; ceramic repair; glass ceramic; zirconia