Effect of surface topography on the bond strength of a composite to three different types of ceramic

• Published in: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2003-09, Vol.90 (3), p.241-246
• Main Authors: Oh, Won-suck, Shen, Chiayi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acrylates; Analysis of Variance; Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Repair; Dental Stress Analysis; Dentistry; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Statistics, Nonparametric; Surface Properties; Tensile Strength
• ISSN: 0022-3913; 1097-6841
• DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00452-9

Mechanical retention based on the surface topography is critical for the success of chairside repair of chipped or fractured ceramic prostheses with a composite. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the tensile bond strength of a composite to 3 dental ceramics was affected by surface roughening procedures on the ceramics. Three ceramics, Eris (ERV), Empress 1 (E1C), and an experimental ceramic (EXC), were used to fabricate 12 rectangular blocks (5 × 5 × 10 mm). After polishing with a series of SiC papers (120 through 1200 grit size), 4 surfaces were created on each ceramic as follows: 1) as-polished (P); 2) airborne-particle abraded with 50 μm Al 2O 3 (A); 3) etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid gel (E); and 4) a combination of airborne particle abrasion and etching (A/E). An adhesive (Heliobond) was applied on the roughened ceramic surface and a composite (Tetric Ceram) was built-up incrementally. Twelve groups of different ceramic/surface treatment combinations were prepared. Twenty ceramic/composite specimens per group (0.9 × 0.9 × 20 mm) were obtained from each block with a slow speed diamond saw. Each specimen was subjected to a tensile force at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min using a universal testing machine until failure. The mode of failure was determined by scanning electron microscopy. ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test (α=.05) were used to analyze the bond strength values. Specimens of all as-polished groups and EXC(A) group separated during sectioning. The mean bond strength values (SDs) in MPa for the remaining groups were as follows: ERV(A): 2.6 (0.8); E1C(A): 2.8 (1.1); ERV(E): 3.1 (1.3); ERV(A/E): 9.3 (1.3); E1C(E): 10.5 (1.5); E1C(A/E):13.5 (3.3); EXC(E): 19.2 (4.7); and EXC(A/E): 23.1 (5.4). ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in the bond strength for both ceramics ( P