Comparison of repair protocols for veneered zirconia as a function of surface conditioning parameters, ceramic primer types and defect sizes. Issue 19 (2nd October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schellenberg, Roman; Özcan, Mutlu
• Is Part Of: Journal of adhesion science and technology. Volume 35:Issue 19(2021)
• Page Start: 2110
• Page End: 2123
• Publication Date: 2021-10-02
• Subjects: Adhesion -- bond strength test -- feldspar -- macro-shear test -- repair -- silanization -- surface conditioning -- zirconia; Adhesion -- Periodicals; Adhesives -- Periodicals; 668.3
• DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2021.1873606
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0169-4243

Abstract

Abstract: This study assessed the effect of surface conditioning methods and ceramic primers on the repair strength of resin-composite to zirconia-veneering ceramic with different defect sizes. Zirconia (IPS e.max ZirCAD) ( n = 30) and veneering ceramic (Creation) ( n = 30) alone acted as control groups. In the 1st part of the study, zirconia was silica-coated (SC) and treated with 3 different ceramic primers (Monobond Plus + Helibond (MBP), Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus (CCP), Z-Prime Plus (ZPP)). Feldspathic ceramic was etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HF) and primed. After repairing with resin-composite (Empress Esthetic) and testing for shear bond strength (SBS), the best performing adhesive system (MBP) for both substrates ( N = 60, n = 10 per group) was tested for defect sizes of (a) 3.2, (b) 4, (c) 5 mm with zirconia (diameter: 1.7 mm) being in the center ( N = 60, n = 10 per group). Half of the specimens were repaired employing HFSC and the other half with SCHF. The specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C, 24 h) and thermocycled (5–55 °C, 5000 cycles). The resin-substrate interface was loaded under shear force (1 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests ( α = 0.05). In the 1st study, MBP resulted in significantly higher SBS (MPa) for both zirconia and veneering ceramic (Zirconia: 14.2 ± 3.6; Veneer: 11.0 ± 3.7), compared to those of CCP (Zirconia: 9.4 ± 2.2; Veneer: 7.5 ± 3.4) and ZPP (Zirconia: 5.0 ± 0.9; Veneer: 5.9 ± 2.1) ( p < 0.01). Neither the size of the defect ( p > 0.05) nor repair sequence showed a significant effect ( p > 0.05) on the repair bond strength with mainly mixed type with cohesive fracture in the veneering ceramic.