Effect of Silane Coupling Agent in Universal Adhesive Agent on Shear Bond Strength between Resin Composite and Lithium Disilicate
Objective: To investigate the shear bond strength between resin composite and lithium disilicate ceramics using Single Bond Universal adhesive with and without silane coupling agent and to investigate the shear bond strength after thermocycling.
Methods: One hundred and fifty lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max Press) specimens (5 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness) were etched with 4.9% hydrofluoric acid for 20 seconds, rinsed and dried, and divided into 5 major groups (n=30). Group 1: RelyX ceramic primer and Scotchbond Multipurpose adhesive were applied on the etched surface as a control group (HF+S+SBMP). Group 2: only Scotchbond Multipurpose adhesive was applied (HF+SBMP). Group 3: RelyX ceramic primer and Single Bond Universal adhesive were applied (HF+S+SBU). Groups 4 and 5: only Single Bond Universal adhesive was applied for 20 seconds (HF+SBU20) and 60 seconds (HF+SBU60) respectively. All specimens were bonded with resin composite Filtek Z350 XT (3 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness) and further divided into 2 minor groups: one stored in 37ºC distilled water for 24 hours and the second thermocycled for 5,000 cycles to simulate aging effect. All specimens were subjected to the shear bond test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Means of shear bond strength were analyzed by Two-way ANOVA, One-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison test (p<0.05). Modes of failure after shear bond test were observed microscopically.
Results: Regarding ceramic repair techniques, the mean shear bond strength of HF+S+SBU group was the highest (30.58 ± 2.89 MPa), but not significantly different from HF+S+SBMP group (29.02 ± 3.08 MPa). The mean shear bond strength of HF+SBMP group was the lowest (15.07 ± 2.96 MPa). The mean shear bond strength of HF+SBU20 (25.10 ± 2.45MPa) was not significantly different from HF+SBU60 (24.19 ± 2.57 MPa), but lower than those of the HF+S+SBMP group and HF+S+SBU group.The mean shear bond strength of thermocycled groups was lower than that of the water storage groups, especially the group without the use of a separate silane coupling agent. The failure mode mostly demonstrated adhesive
failure.
Conclusions: Using Single Bond Universal adhesive can improve shear bond strength between resin composite and lithium disilicate ceramics, but the shear bond strength was lower than the group using the silane coupling agent. After thermocycling, the shear bond strength decreased.
Giordano RA. Dental ceramic restorative systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996; 17(8): 779-782, 784-786 passim; quiz 94.
Christensen GJ. The all-ceramic restoration dilemma: where are we? J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142(6): 668-671.
Chu SJ. Current clinical strategies with lithium-disilicate restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012; 33(1): 64, 66-67.
Pieger S, Salman A, Bidra AS. Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate single crowns and partial fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(1): 22-30.
Bello JA, Myers ML, Graser GN, Jarvis RH. Bond strength and microleakage of porcelain repair materials. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 54(6): 788-791.
Kimmich M, Stappert CF. Intraoral treatment of veneering porcelain chipping of fixed dental restorations: a review and clinical application. J Am Dent Assoc 2013; 144(1): 31-44.
Suliman AH, Swift EJ, Jr., Perdigao J. Effects of surface treatment and bonding agents on bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 70(2): 118-120.
Nagai T, Kawamoto Y. Effect of hydrofluoric acid etching on bond strength of composite luting agent to lithium disilicate ceramic material. Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 100-106.
M ESPE. Technical product profile Scotchbond Universal Adhesive. Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/754751O/scotchbond-universal-adhesive-technical-product-profile.pdf (2013). [cited 2014 November 26].
Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Papacchini F, et al. The effect of different surface treatments on bond strength between leucite reinforced feldspathic ceramic and composite resin. J Dent 2010; 38(1): 39-43.
Kalavacharla V, Lawson N, Ramp L, Burgess J. Influence of etching protocol and silane treatment with a universal adhesive on lithium disilicate bond strength. Oper Dent 2015; 40(4): 372-378.
Lundvall PK, Ruyter E, Rønold HJ,Ekstrand K. Comparison of different etching agents and repair materials used on feldspathic porcelain. J Adhes Sci Technol 2009; 23(7-8): 1177-1186.
Kim RJ, Woo JS, Lee IB, Yi YA, Hwang JY, Seo DG. Performance of universal adhesives on bonding to leucite-reinforced ceramic. Biomater Res 2015; 19: 11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552369/. [cited 2015 November 16].
Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012; 28(5): 467-477.
Chen L, Shen H, Suh BI. Effect of incorporating BisGMA resin on the bonding properties of silane and zirconia primers. J Prosthet Den t2013; 110(5): 402-407.
Meng X, Yoshida K, Taira Y, Kamada K, Luo X. Effect of siloxane quantity and ph of silane coupling agents and contact angle of resin bonding agent on bond durability of resin cements to machinable ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13(1): 71-78.
M ESPE. Technical product profile RelyX Ceramic Primer. Available from: www.dentalcompare.com/ExternalLink.aspx?uid=70399 (2008). [2016 April 10].
Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Ozcan M, Yli-Urpo A, Vallittu PK. An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(2): 155-164.
Ishida H. Structural gradient in the silane coupling agent layers and its influence on the mechanical and physical properties of composites. In: Ishida H, Kumar G, editors. Molecular characterization of composite interfaces. New York: Plenum Press; 1985. 25-50.
Olmos D, González-Benito J, Aznar AJ, Baselga J. Hydrolytic damage study of the silane coupling region in coated silica microfibres: pH and coating type effects. J Mater Process Technol 2003; 143–144: 82-86.
Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2014; 30(7): e147-162.
Roulet JF, Soderholm KJ, Longmate J. Effects of treatment and storage conditions on ceramic/composite bond strength. J Dent Res 1995; 74(1): 381-387.
Monticelli F, Toledano M, Osorio R, Ferrati M. Effect of temperature on the silane coupling agents when bonding coreresin to quartz fiber posts. Dent Mater 2006; 22(11): 1024-1028.
de Carvalho RF, Cotes C, Kimpara ET, Leite FP, Ozcan M. Heat treatment of pre-hydrolyzed silane increases adhesion of phosphate monomer-based resin cement to glass ceramic. Braz Dent J 2015; 26(1): 44-49.
Shen C, Oh WS, Williams JR. Effect of post-silanization drying on the bond strength of composite to ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91(5): 453-458.
Baratto SSP, Spina DRF, Gonzaga CC, et al. Silanated surface treatment: effects on the bond Strength to lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Braz Dent J 2015; 26(5): 474-477.
Zhou Y, Chiu CW, Liang H. Interfacial structures and properties of organic materials for biosensors: an overview. Sensors (Basel) 2012; 12(11): 15036-15062.
Debnath S, Wunder SL, McCool JI, Baran GR. Silane treatment effects on glass/resin interfacial shear strengths. Dent Mater 2003; 19(5): 441-448.
Ikemura K, Tanaka H, Fujii T, et al. Design of a new, multi-purpose, light-curing adhesive comprising a silane coupling agent, acidic adhesive monomers and dithiooctanoate monomers for bonding to varied metal and dental ceramic materials. Dent Mater J 2011;30(4): 493-500.