Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
University of Kocaeli, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Yuvacik/Basiskele, Kocaeli, Turkey
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Sihhiye-06100, Ankara, Turkey
c
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Goethestrasse 70, 80336 Munich, Germany
b
article info
abstract
Article history:
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of porcelain
complex.
3 April 2012
Methods: One hundred thirty-five extracted human maxillary central teeth were used, and
the teeth were randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 15). The teeth were prepared with 3
different levels for bonding surfaces of enamel (E), dentine (D), and enameldentine complex
(ED). Porcelain discs (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) of 2 mm in thickness and 4 mm in
Keywords:
diameter were luted to the tooth surfaces by using 2 light-curing (RelyX Veneer [RV], 3M
ESPE; Variolink Veneer [VV], Ivoclar Vivadent) and a dual-curing (Variolink II [V2], Ivoclar
Dentine exposure
Adhesives
strength test was performed in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min until bonding
failure. Failure modes were determined under a stereomicroscope, and fracture surfaces
were evaluated with a scanning electron microscope. The data were statistically analysed
(SPSS 17.0) ( p = 0.05).
Results: Group RV-D exhibited the lowest bond strength value (5.42 ! 6.6 MPa). There was
statistically no difference among RV-D, V2-D (13.78 ! 8.8 MPa) and VV-D (13.84 ! 6.2 MPa)
groups ( p > 0.05). Group VV-E exhibited the highest bond strength value (24.76 ! 8.8 MPa).
Conclusions: The type of tooth structure affected the shear bond strength of the porcelain
laminate veneers to the 3 different types of tooth structures (enamel, dentine, and enamel
dentine complex).
Clinical significance: When dentine exposure is necessary during preparation, enough sound
enamel must be protected as much as possible to maintain a good bonding; to obtain
maximum bond strength, preparation margins should be on sound enamel.
1.
Introduction
98
2.
2.1.
2.1.1.
Preparation of enamel
2.1.2.
Preparation of dentine
2.1.3.
99
Manufacturer
Variolink II
RelyXTM Veneer
Variolink Veneer
Composition
Dimethacrylates
Inorganic fillers
Catalysts and Stabilizers
Pigments
BisGMA
TEGDMA
Zirconia/silica and fumed silica
Pigments
Photoinitiator
Dimethacrylates
Inorganic fillers
Ytterbium trifluoride
Catalysts and stabilizers
Pigments
SiO2, Li2O
K2O, P2O5
ZrO2, ZnO
other oxides
colour oxides
Filler loading
a
LOT number
73.4% weight
46.7% volumea
77.2% weightb
52.0% volumeb
66% weight
47% volume
K04678a
K35373b
60.1% weight
40% volume
M13040
9ER
M13076
2.2.
2.3.
Bonding procedure
2.4.
Variolink Veneer
Tooth surface:
(1) Syntac Primer for 15 s
(2) Syntac Adhesive for 10 s
(3) Heliobond for 10 s
Porcelain surface:
(1) Monobond S for 60 s
(2) Heliobond for 10 s
RelyX Veneer
Tooth surface:
Adper Scottchbond 1XT for
10 s as 2 coats
Porcelain Surface:
RelyX Ceramic Primer for 60 s
Variolink II
Tooth surface:
(1) Syntac Primer for 15 s
(2) Syntac Adhesive for 10 s
(3) Heliobond for 10 s
Porcelain surface:
(1) Monobond S for 60 s
(2) Heliobond for 10 s
100
2.5.
Morphological study using scanning electron
microscope (SEM)
Following shear testing, all fractured samples were examined
under a stereomicroscope (ZEISS, Axioskop 2 MAT, Oberkochen, Germany). The debonded adhesion surfaces were also
examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to identify
the failure mode. Possible failure modes are classified as
follows:
(i) adhesive failure between the porcelain and tooth surface
within the bonding interface,
(ii) mixed failure [partial adhesive failure between the
porcelain and tooth surface and/or resin cement combined with partial cohesive failure (less than 40% in the
bonding area) in tooth structure and resin cement],
(iii) cohesive failure in tooth structure and resin cement.20,21
To quantify the mixed failures, the percentage of cohesive
failure area was estimated on each specimen by means of
imaging software.
2.6.
Statistical analysis
3.
Results
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
22.46 (9.2) ab
20.73 (9.2) ab
5.42 (6.6) c
24.76 (8.8) a
23.97 (9.5) ab
13.84 (6.2) bc
23.64 (13.1) ab
23.01 (7.8) ab
13.78 (8.8) bc
RV-E
RV-E-D
RV-D
VV-E
VV-E-D
VV-D
V2-E
V2-E-D
V2-D
Dependent variable
Eta-squared
valuesa
0.034
0.001
0.052
0.3
0.528
0.025
a
The higher the eta-squared value, the stronger the effect of the
independent parameter on the shear bond strength.
*
Statistically significant effect ( p < 0.05).
Adhesive
Mixed
Cohesive
Group RV-E
5
33.3%a
4.6%b
9
60%a
8.3%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
6
40%a
5.5%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
14
93.3%a
12.8%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
9
60%a
39%c
5
33.3%a
22%c
0
1
6.7%a
33.3%d
1
6.7%a
33.3%d
0
9
60%a
39%c
0
1
6.7%a
33.3%d
0
Group RV-E-D
Group RV-D
Group VV-E
Group VV-E-D
Group VV-D
Group V2-E
Group V2-E-D
Group V2-D
a
b
c
d
Within group.
Within adhesive.
Within mixed.
Within cohesive.
cemented to enamel and to enameldentine complex surfaces, were not statistically different. However, they were
statistically different from those of the dentine groups (Fig. 1b;
p < 0.05).
Figs. 25 show SEM micrographs of the tooth surfaces after
the shear test. Fig. 2 illustrates a mixed failure of a sample
from the group RV-E-D. This type of failure designates a
mixture of adhesive failure and cohesive failure (40%<) within
the same fracture surface and therefore classified as mixed
failure. An example of a cohesively fractured sample is
presented in Fig. 3. The cohesive failures occurred more than
75% of the bonding area either at the tooth substrate and resin
cement. As for adhesive failure, Fig. 4 (V2-E-D) shows that the
Dependent variable
Eta-squared
valuesa
0.001
0.001
0.184
0.266
0.001
0.181
The higher the eta-squared value, the stronger the effect of the
independent parameter on the failure mode.
*
Statistically significant effect ( p < 0.05).
101
4.
Discussion
102
103
104
5.
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
This investigation was supported in part by winning of the
CED.IADR (Continental European Division of the International
Association for Dental Research) Visiting Scholar Stipend and
conducted in Dental School of the Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversity, which is a collaborating research laboratory in
the CED.IADR.
zturks thesis, which was
This study is based on Dr. Elif O
submitted to Department of Restorative Dentistry of the
Faculty of Dentistry at Hacettepe University, in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the PhD degree.
references
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
105