Shear Bond Strength Between Base Metal Alloy and Restorative

ARAŞTIRMA (Research)
Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi
Cilt: 29, Sayı: 2, Sayfa: 8-15, 2005
Shear Bond Strength Between Base Metal
Alloy and Restorative Materials Cemented
with Adhesive Resin: Effect of Base
Metal Surface Treatment and Restorative
Material
Adeziv Rezin ile Yapıştırılan Değersiz Metal
Alaşımı ve Restoratif Materyaller Arasındaki
Makaslama Bağlanma Dayancı: Yüzey
İşlemlerinin ve Restoratif Materyallerin Etkisi
Ahmet Umut GÜLER, DDS, PhD **Bülent BEK, DDS, PhD
***
Eda GÜLER, DDS
*
***
Hülya KÖPRÜLÜ, DDS, PhD
*Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics
**Gazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics
***Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry
ABSTRACT
ÖZET
Introduction: In resin-bonded bridge work, the retainers should ideally be bonded to etched enamel, but
abutment teeth have caries lesions or restorations at
the bonding side.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate
different surface treatment procedures applied to
base metal alloy bond strength to enamel and various
restorative materials with adhesive resin cement.
Material and Methods: Total 84 base metal alloy
(Bellabond N) specimens were divided into two groups for surface treatment procedures, which were
sandblasting and electroetching. These two groups
were then divided into six subgroups, each containing
seven specimens which investigated bond strength to
enamel as a control and restorative materials (amalgam alloy, light-cured composite resin, light-cured
glass ionomer cement, conventional glass ionomer
cement, and compomer). Panavia F as adhesive
resin cement was used. All the prepared specimens
were stored in distilled water at 37 0C for 24 hours
and were thermally cycled for 500 cycles at 55±10C
and 5±10C with 20 seconds dwell time in each bath.
Giriş: Rezin bağlı sabit protezlerde retinerlerin ideal
olarak asitle pürüzlendirilmiş mine yüzeyine bağlanmaları gerekirken, aykırı durumlarda dayanak dişlerde bağlantı bölgesinde çeşitli restorasyonlar veya
açığa çıkmış dentin yüzeyleri bulunabilir.
Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı; değişik yüzey işlemleri
uygulanan değersiz metal alaşımının adeziv rezin
siman ile mine ve farklı restoratif materyallere olan
bağlanma dayancını araştırmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 84 değersiz metal alaşım
örnek kumlama ve elektrolitik pürüzlendirme yüzey
işlemleri için iki gruba ayrıldı. Bu iki grup, mine ve
5 farklı restoratif materyale (amalgam, kompozit,
geleneksel cam iyonomer siman, ışıkla sertleşen cam
iyonomer siman, kompomer) olan bağlanma dayancını incelemek üzere her biri 7 örnek içeren 6 alt
gruba bölündü. Adeziv rezin siman olarak Panavia-F
kullanıldı. Yapıştırılan örnekler 24 saat 37 oC suda
bekletildikten sonra 500 kez termal siklusa (55±10
C, 5±10C) tabi tutuldu. Testler 0.5mm/dak. kafa
Shear testing was performed on universal test machine using a cross-head speed of 0,5 mm/minute. The
data were controlled with two-way variance analyses.
In multiple comparing of the means Tukey Multiple
Comparison Test was used.
Results: Present study shows that electroetching
procedure reduced the bond strength regarding to
sandblasting procedure. The results indicated that
amalgam groups had the lowest bond strength when
enamel and five different restorative materials were
compared. There was no statistically significance
between enamel and light cured composite resin groups and they had the second best bond strength in
all groups. Compomer groups had the highest bond
strength in all groups in our study.
Conclusion: In applications, sandblasting with 50μm
Al2O3 offers a simple, consistant, and effective method for treatment of the fit surface of resin bonded
fixed partial dentures. If the retainer has a caries
lesion in resin bonded fixed partial dentures, optimal
bond strength can be achieved by lesion restoration
with the use of compomer or composite resin materials.
hızında üniversal test makinesinde gerçekleştirildi.
Veriler çift yönlü varyans analizi ve Tukey çoklu
karşılaştırma testi kullanılarak değerlendirildi.
KEYWORDS
Shear Bond Strength, Base Metal Alloy, Restorative
Material, Surface Treatment
ANAHTAR KELİMELER
Makaslama Bağlantı Dayancı, Değersiz Metal Alaşımı,
Restoratif Materyal, Yüzey İşlemleri
INTRODUCTION
Today, the purposes of modern restorative
dentistry are the complete reparation of losses
in the dental tissue or the dental arch and the
improvement of appropriate materials and techniques necessary for these procedures. However,
almost all of the materials used in these techniques have their own unique characteristic; their
bond strengths to each other gains importance.
Besides, these techniques include the combination of useful different metal and amalgam alloys,
composite resins, cements, and adhesive resin
systems.
The introduction of enamel acid etching and
resin bonding by Buonocore1 in 1955 marked
the beginning of a new era of adhesive dentistry.
In 1973 Alain Rochette2 introduced the idea of
bonding a cast metal bar to the lingual surfaces of
periodontally involved anterior teeth for splinting
purposes using the acid-etch technique and un-
Bulgular: Elektrolitik pürüzlendirme işlemi bağlantı
dayancını azaltmıştır. En düşük bağlanma değerini
amalgam grubu ortaya koymuştur. Mine ve kompozit rezin arasında istatistiksel olarak fark bulunmamaktadır ve bu gruplar en iyi ikinci bağlanma
değerini ortaya koymuşlardır. En yüksek bağlanma
dayancı değerini kompomer grubu sergilemiştir.
Sonuç: Uygulamada, rezin bağlı sabit parsiyel protezin oturma yüzeyinin 50μm Al2O3 ile kumlanarak
pürüzlendirilmesi kolay ve etkili bir bağlanma ortaya
koymaktadır.Eğer destek dişler üzerinde herhangi
bir çürük lezyonu mevcutsa, bu lezyonun kompomer veya kompozit rezin ile restorasyonu, yapılacak
olan rezin bağlı sabit parsiyel protezin optimum
bağlantısını sağlamaya katkıda bulunabilir.
filled resin cement. This conservative approach
has started a new technique named resin-bonded
bridge work for repair of extracted teeth.
One of the criteria for success of resin bonded
bridge-work are materials that should be strongly
and permanently bonded to each other as well as
to dental tissues. This is a complex and difficult
phenomenon to create such strong bonds since
the materials applied have different molecular
make-ups and physical characteristics.3,4
As the result of long lasting studies, the bonds
between materials are achieved by acid-etching,
electro-etching, air abrasion, and the use of different adhesive systems.3-6 Applied techniques are
changed parallel to the newly and latest developed materials.
In resin-bonded bridge work, the retainers
should ideally be bonded to etched enamel, but
abutment teeth may present restorations or exposed dentine at the bonding sites. Clinicians
10
need to know the bonding characteristics of such
adherends and whether better results will be achieved by extending the bridge retainers to cover
restorations and dentine or by confining the cover only to the available enamel surface.7
The aim of this study was to investigate the
shear bond strength between base metalalloy
and different restorative materials cemented with
adhesive resin.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
FIGURE 1
The materials used in this study are shown
in Table I. Seventy base metal alloy disks (height
of 1.5 mm and diameter of 7 mm) were prepared with conventional techniques for the groups
which investigated bond strength to restorative
materials. For evaluation of bond strength to
enamel, 14 base metal alloy disks (height of 3mm
and diameter of 5 mm) were prepared. All of the
base metal specimens were exposed to porcelain
thermal procedure for imitation of porcelain
suprastructure firing.
Ten acrylic blocks (height of 20mm and diameter or 30mm) were prepared with self cured
acrylic resin for the purpose of holding the base
metal alloy specimens to the test machine, except enamel groups’ specimens. On one side of
the acrylic blocks three, on the other side four
sockets (depth of 3mm and diameter of 8 mm)
were prepared. The sockets were prepared of
equal distance to the center of the acrylic block
and to each other. (Fig. 1) The base metal alloy
specimens were embedded into the sockets with
self cured acrylic resin. (Fig. 2) For the purpose of
Prepared acrylic blocks for the purpose of holding the base
metal alloy specimens to the test machine
FIGURE 2
Embedded base metal alloy specimens into the sockets with self
cured acrylic resin
TABLE I
The materials used in this study
Material
Composition
Manufacturer
Bellabond N
Base Metal Alloy
Bego, Germany
Avolloy
Amalgam Alloy
Cavex, Holland
Composan LCM
Microhybrid Composite
Promedika, Germany
Vitremer
Glass-ionomer cement
3M, USA
Compoglass F
Compomer
Ivoclar-Vivadent,Leichtenstein
Ketac-Fil Plus
Glass-ionomer cement
Espe, Germany
Panavia F
Adhesive resin system
Kuraray Co., Japan
11
surface standardization the specimens were gradually ground wet with 120, 400, and 600 grid
silicon carbide paper lasting 10 seconds each. A
total of 84 graunded base metal alloy specimens
were divided into two groups for surface treatment procedures which were sandblasting and
sandblasting+electro-etching.
In the sandblasting group, specimens were
air-abraded (Bego Top-tec, Bego, Germany) with
50μm Al2O3 for 10 seconds from an approximate distance of 10mm, at an air pressure of 60 psi
using. Then specimens were cleaned in ultrasonic cleaner with deionized water. In the electroetched group, specimens were air-abraded as the
sandblasting groups, then electro-etched in 10%
sulfuric acid for 3 minutes at a current density
of 300mA/cm². The specimens were then ultrasonically cleaned in 18% hydrochloric acid for
10 minutes, followed by sonication in deionized
water for 10 minutes.
The specimens in the sandblasting and electro-etching groups were then divided into six
subgroups, each containing seven specimens
which investigated bond strength to enamel as
a control and restorative materials (amalgam alloy, light-cured composite resin, light-cured glass
ionomer cement, conventional glass ionomer cement, and compomer).
For the enamel groups, 14 non-carious extracted human central teeth were separated from
their roots under water cooling and were embedded in self-cured acrylic resin blocks (diameter of
30 mm and height of 20 mm) with their labial
surfaces exposed. The labial surfaces were flattened until a not less then 5mm diameter smooth
enamel surface was obtained, using 320, 400,
and 600 grid silicon carbide paper.
For each of the restorative materials, seven
specimens were prepared in a 3 mm thick brass
mold that contained holes (diameter of 5 mm)
according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. In order to obtain surface standardization,
surfaces of all specimens were ground with 600
grid silicon carbide paper.
Shearing Device
F
Treated Surface
Restorative Material
Acrylic Block
Base Metal Alloy
FIGURE 3
Schematic drawing of tested specimens in testing apparatus
Panavia F adhesive resin system (Kuraray
Co., Japan) was used for luting of 12 groups in
this study according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. During the setting of the resin
cement, 500 g static loads to each specimen
were applied for 3 minutes.
All the luted specimens were stored in distilled
water at 37 0C for 24 hours and were thermally
cycled for 500 cycles at 55±10C and 5±10C
with 20 seconds dwell time in each bath. Shear testing of bonded specimens was performed
on a test machine (Lloyd LRX, England) using
a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/minute. (Fig. 3)
The data recorded as Newton were changed to
Megapascal (MPa) and then statistical analyses
were done.
After the mean value and standard deviation
of all groups were calculated, the data were evaluated with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In multiple comparision of the means, Tukey Multiple Comparison Test was used.
RESULTS
According to the ANOVA results, surface
treatment procedures, restorative materials, and
their interaction were statistically significant (p<0.05). (Table II)
12
TABLE II
Two way analysis of variance for restorative materials and surface treatment procedures
Variable
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Squares
F Value
Probability
Surface Treatment
1
3660,888
3660,888
679,226
.001
Restorative Material
5
16270,77
3254,154
603,762
.001
Interaction
5
1741,450
348,290
64,620
.001
Error
72
388,065
5,390
TABLE III
Mean and standard deviation of shear bond strength and differences between groups for sandblasting group
Groups
MPa
Differences*
Amalgam
9.20 (0.86)
a
Conventional GIC
20.06 (0.98)
b
Ligth-cured GIC
34.14 (1.62)
c
Enamel
52.22 (3.15)
d
Composite Resin
53.34 (2.51)
d
Compomer
58.94 (2.87)
e
* The different letters indicate dissimilarity of groups (p<0.05)
In the sandblasting group, the lowest bond
strength value was observed in amalgam group
(9,20MPa). The difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). Although, conventional glass-ionomer cement group demonstrated higher bond
strength (20.06 MPa) when compared to amalgam group, this group had lower bond strength
when compared with all the other groups. Lightcured glass-ionomer cement group demonstrated
average values (34.14 MPa) of bond strength for
all groups. Also there was no statistical significance of the bond strength between composite
(53.34 MPa) and enamel (52.22MPa) groups
(p>0.05). The highest bond strength in sandblasting groups was observed in compomer group
(58.94 MPa).The difference was statistically significant comparing the others group (p<0.05).
Means and standard deviations of bond strength
and differences of the graunded groups are listed
in Table III.
In the electro-etching group, the lowest bond
strength was observed in amalgam group (9.84MPa). The difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). Conventional glass-ionomer cement group showed higher bond strength (14.27
MPa) values than amalgam group. Even though,
no statistical significant difference (p>0.05) was
observed between enamel (30.43 MPa) and composite groups (30.12 MPa) light-cured glass-ionomer cement (27.24MPa) and composite groups
(30.12 MPa). The highest bond strength in sandblasting groups was observed in compomer group (38.22 MPa). The difference was statistically
significant comparing the others group (p<0.05).
Means and standard deviations of bond strength
and differences of the sandblasting groups are
listed in Table IV.
When comparing two different surface treatment procedures, sandblasting with 50µm Al2O3 powder observed higher bond strength values than electro-etching (p<0.05), except amalgam group (p>0.05). (Fig. 4)
13
TABLE IV
Mean and standard deviation of shear bond strength and differences between groups for electro-etching group
Groups
MPa
Differences*
Amalgam
9.84 (0.20)
a
Conventional GIS
14.27 (1.35)
b
Ligth-cured GIS
27.24 (2.09)
c
Enamel
30.43 (2.55)
c d
Composite Resin
30.12 (1.95)
d
Compomer
38.22 (2.15)
e
* The different letters indicate dissimilarity of groups (p<0.05)
special formulation capable of chemical bonding
to oxides of nickel, chromium, and cobalt. It is
based on a bis-GMA resin and contains a chemical known as MDP( 10-methacryloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate).10 Several studies reported
that Panavia demonstrated higher bond strength
values with base metal alloys.11-14 Therefore, Panavia F was used in this study.
FIGURE 4
Effect of surface treatment procedures on bond strength of
base metal alloy to enamel and restorative materials
DISCUSSION
The development of suitable bonding agents
has received considerable attention in the dental
literature, with particular interest paid to the development of a universal bonding agent. Progress
in this area has been slow because a number of
dissimilar dental substrates are involved that can
influence adhesion, and each of these materials
has physical properties sufficiently different from
the others to confound the effort to develop a
bonding agent that is suitable for all situations.8
Adhesive resin cements exhibited higher
bond strength values when compared to non-adhesives.9 Panavia F adhesive resin cement has a
Previous studies showed that base metal alloys cemented with adhesive resin system had
higher bond strength values and longevity when
compared to high-noble or noble alloys.15-17 Due
to these reasons base metal alloy was used in this
study. Furthermore, they are more economical
than high-noble or noble alloys.
There was no standardization concerning the
electro-etching procedures in the literature. The
used acid solutions in previous electro-etching
studies were similar; however, the applied current
varied between 56mA/cm² and 400mA/cm²
and the current time changed between 3 and 10
minutes. Due to this, the obtained bond strength
values between alloys and resins demonstrated
differences.18-21
According to the results of the present study,
for all restorative material groups (except for the
amalgam group) significant differences were
obtained between surface treatment procedures. Electro-etching procedures decreased bond
14
strength. Even though, current density applied in this study was similar to the majority of
previous studies, the applied time was less. The
different characteristics of metal alloys, thermal
cycle time, number, and temperature may be the
reason for the decrease in bond strength values
in electro-etching procedures.
No difference between surface treatment procedures was observed in the amalgam groups.
This may be due to adhesive failures that occurred between amalgam alloy and resin cement.
The reason of this may be sanding procedures
(for surface standardization with 600 grid silicon
carbide paper), which created smooth amalgam
surfaces. This smooth surface might not have
been adequate for mechanically bonding with
resin cement.
In the previous studies, bond strength values
between adhesive resins and amalgam surfaces,
which were sandblasted and corroded, were investigated. According to the results, the sandblasted amalgam group had the highest bond
strength values.22, 23
In Aboush and Jenkins’s study7 in 1991,
bond strength among Panavia EX and enamel,
dentine, and different restorative materials were
evaluated. They stated that Panavia EX showed
the highest bond strength values to enamel then
to light-cured composite resin then to chemical
cured composite resin, then to glass-ionomer
cement than to dentine and the lowest bond
strength values to amalgam alloys. The results of
the study were in accordance with this study.
CONCLUSION
Within the limits of this study, the following
conclusions were obtained:
1- Significant differences were obtained between surface treatment procedures. Electro-etching procedures decreased bond strength.
2- When investigating restorative materials,
the highest bond strength values were observed
in compomer groups. However, amalgam groups exhibited the lowest bond strength values.
In applications, sandblasting with 50μm
Al2O3 offers a simple, consistent, and effective
method for treatment of the fit surface of resin
bonded fixed partial dentures. If the retainer has
a caries lesion in resin bonded fixed partial dentures, optimal bond strength can be achieved by
lesion restoration with the use of compomer or
composite resin materials.
REFERENCES
1. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the
adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enemal surface. J
Dent Res. 1955;34:849-853.
2. Rochette AL. Attachment of a splint to enamel of lower
anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1973;30:418-423.
3. Phillips RW. Skinner’s science of dental materials. Nineth
Ed., WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia.1982.
4. Cobb DS, Vargas MA, Fridrich TA, Bouschlicer MR.
Metal surface treatment: characterization and effect on
composite-to-metal bond strength. Oper Dent. 2000;25:
427-433.
5. Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, Piotrowski TJ. Tensile
fatigue limits of prosthodontic adhesives. J Dent Res
1991;70(3):208-210.
6. Czerw RJ, Wakefield CW, Robbins JW, Fulkerson MS.
Shear bond strength of composite resin to micro-etched
metal with five newer-generation bonding agents. Oper
Dent, 1995;12:58-63.
7. Aboush YEY, Jenkins CBG. The bonding of adhesive resin
cement to single and combined adherents encountered in
resin-bonded bridge work: An in vitro study. Br Dent J.
1991;171(21):166-169.
8. Triolo PT, Kelsey WP, Barkmeier WW. Bond strength of
an adhesive resin system with various dental substrates. J
Prosthet Dent. 1995;74:463-468.
9. Sarafianou A, Kafandaris NM. Effect of convergence
angle on retention of resin-bonded retainers cemented with
resinous cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:475-481.
10. El-Mowafy O, Rubo MHM. Resin bonded fixed partial
dentures: A literature review with presentation of a novel
approach. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;13(6):460-467.
11. Diaz-Arnold AM, Williams VD, Aquilino SA. Tensile
strength of three luting agents for adhesion of fixed partial
dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 1989;2:115-122.
12. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Brantley W, Laurell KA Shear
rebond strength of Rexillium III to enamel using resin
composite cements. Int J Prosthodont. 1996;9(6):555-562.
15
13. Çötert HS, Öztürk B. Tensile bond strength of enemalresin-metal joints. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75(6):609-616.
14. Arruda Nobilo MA, Consani S, Goes MF. Influence of
adhesive systems on the bonding of dental amalgam to
glass ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:127-130.
15. Yoshida K, Kamada K, Tanagawa M, Atsuta M. Shear
bond strengths of three resin cements used with three
adhesive primers for metal. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75:254261.
19. Brady T, Doukoudakis A, Rasmussen ST. Experimental
comparison between perforated and etched- metal resinbonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;54:361-365.
20. Creugers NHJ, Kayser AF, Van’t Hof MA. A seven-and-ahalf-year survival study of resin-bonded bridges. J Dent
Res. 1992;71:1822-1825.
21. Brekally TL, Smales RJ. A retrospective clinical evaluation
of resin-bonded bridges inserted at the Adelaide Dental
Hospital. Aust Dent J. 1993;38:85-96.
16. Breeding LC, Dixon DL. The effect of metal surface
treatment on the shear bond strengths of base and noble
metals bonded to enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:390393.
22. Sperber RL, Watson PA, Rossouw PE, Sectakof PA.
Adhesion of bonded orthodontic attachments to dental
amalgam: In vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1999;116:506-513.
17. Sen D, Nayır E, Pamuk S. Comparison of the tensile bond
strength of high-noble, noble, and base metal alloys bonded
to enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(5):561-566.
23. Watts DC, Devlin H, Fletcher JE. Bonding characteristics
of a phosphonated anaerobic adhesive to amalgam. J Dent.
1992;20:245-249.
18. Livaditis GJ, Thompson VP. Etched casting: An improved
retantive mechanism for resin-bonded retainers. J Prosthet
Dent. 1982;47: 52-58.
CORRESPONDING ADRESS
Ahmet Umut GÜLER, DDS, PhD
Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Prosthodontics 55139 Kurupelit-Samsun-Turkey
Tel: 0090 362 457 60 00-3015 Fax: 0090 362 457 60 32 E-mail: [email protected]

Download Report