SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF CERAMIC LAMINATE VENEERS TO ENAMEL AND ENAMEL–DENTINE COMPLEX BONDED WITH DIFFERENT ADHESIVE LUTING SYSTEMS | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 3, Volume 41, Issue 2, August 2016, Pages 131-137 PDF (1.43 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59263 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Elkamhawy Nada H.* ; Elkadi Ahmed S.; Alabbassy Fayza H.* | ||
| Master student of Operative Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| INTRODUCTION: The laminate veneer technique bonds a thin ceramic laminate to the tooth surface with resin cements to restore anterior teeth. A vital importance is attributed to the strength and durability of the adhesion complex. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of ceramic laminate veneers to two different tooth substrates (Enamel and Enamel–Dentine complex), with different luting systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty extracted human maxillary central incisor teeth were used, and randomly divided according to tooth surface preparations into two main groups (n=30); Group A in Enamel (E) only and Group B in Enamel-Dentin complex (E-D), each group was then subdivided according to the type of resin cement received (Light cure LC or Dual cure DC) into four sub groups of 15 specimens each: Group A 1:(E + LC); Group A 2:(E + DC); Group B 1:(E-D + LC); Group B 2:(E-D + DC). Ceramic discs (IPS e.max Press, IvoclarVivadent) of 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height were luted to the tooth surfaces by using the resin cement (Variolink Esthetic®, IvoclarVivadent) according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Shear bond 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 analyzed (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Group B 1 exhibited the lowest bond strength value(9.12±4.86MPa). There was statistically no difference among A 1,A 2 and among B 1,B 2(p>0.05).Group A 2 exhibited the highest bond strength value (14.73± 5.83MPa). CONCLUSIONS: The type of tooth substrate affected the shear bond strength of the ceramic laminate veneers to the 2 different types of tooth structures (Enamel, Enamel–Dentine complex). | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Porcelain laminate veneers; ceramic discs; Dentine exposure; Adhesives | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers: A review of the literature. J Dent 2000; 28:163–77.
2. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers bonded to tooth structure: an ultra-morphological FE SEM examination of the adhesive interface. Dent Mat 1999;15: 105–19.
3. Zarone F, Epifania E, Leone G, Sorrentino R, Ferrari M. Dynamometric assessment of the mechanical resistance of porcelain veneers related to tooth preparation: a comparison between two techniques. J Prosthetic Dent 2006; 95: 354– 63.
4. Rouse JS, Robbins JW. Porcelain veneers. In: Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, editors. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc 2006; 463–87.
5. Omar H, Atta O, El-Mowafy O, Khan SA. Effect of CADCAM porcelain veneers thickness. on their cemented color. J Dent 2010; 38: 95–9.
6. Troedson M, Derand T. Shear stresses in the adhesive layer under porcelain veneers. A finite element method study. Acta Odontol Scand 1998; 56: 257–62.
7. Sadowsky SJ. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthetic Dent 2006; 96:433–42.
8. Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Essig ME, Givan DA, Pan YH. Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro. J Dent 2012; 40: 20-29.
9. Brunton PA, Richmond S, Wilson NH. Variations in the depth of preparations for porcelain laminate veneers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1997; 5: 89–92.
10. Nattress BR, Youngson CC, Patterson CJ, Martin DM, Ralph JP. An in vitro assessment of tooth preparation for porcelain veneer restorations. J Dent 1995; 23: 165–70.
11. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998; 26: 1– 20.
12. Xing W, Jiang T, Ma X, Liang S, Wang Z, Sa Y, et al. Evaluation of the esthetic effect of resin cements and try-in pastes on ceromer veneers. J Dent 2010; 38: e87–e94.
13. Stangel I, Ellis TH, Sacher E. Adhesion to tooth structure mediated by contemporary bonding systems. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51:677–94.
14. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dental Res 2005; 84: 118–32.
15. Ozturk E, Hickel R, Bolay S, Ilie N. Micromechanical properties of veneer luting resins after curing through ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 139-46.
16. ALGhazali N, Laukner J, Burnside G, Jarad FD, Smith PW, Preston AJ. An investigation into the effect of try-in pastes, uncured and cured resin cements on the overall color of ceramic veneer restorations: an in vitro study. J Dent 2010; 38: e78–86.
17. Turgut S, Bagis B. Colour stability of laminate veneers: an in vitro study. J Dent 2011; 39: e57–64.
18. Perdigao J. Dentin bonding as a function of dentin structure. Dent Clin North Am 2002; 46:277–301.
19. Pekkan G, Hekimoglu C. Evaluation of shear and tensile bond strength between dentin and ceramics using dualpolymerizing resin cements. J Prosthetic Dent 2009; 102: 242–52.
20. Ozturk E, Bolay S, Hickel R, Ilie N. Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate to enamel, dentine and enamel – dentine complex bonded with different adhesive luting systems. J Dent. 2013; 41:97-105.
21. Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review. Dent Mat 2010;26:78–93.
22. Kotz S, Balakrishnan N, Read CB, Vidakovic B. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience; 2006.
23. Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013.
24. Lee JJ, Nettey-Marbell A, Cook Jr A, Pimenta LA, Leonard R, Ritter AV. Using extracted teeth for research: the effect of storage medium and sterilization on dentin bond strengths. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2007;138:1599–603.
25. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Journal of Dental Research 1995; 74(9):1591-6.
26.Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin B. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80:280-301.
27. Kelly JR, Campbell SD, Bowen HK. Fracture-surface analysis of dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 536- 41.
28. Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller KA, Jung H, Federlin M, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clinical Oral Investigations 2005;9:161–7.
29.Bair J, Bhatt S, Perry R, Kugel G. Shear bond strength of resin cements to dentin and enamel. J Dent Res 2013, 92 (Spec Iss A): 3042.
30.Chiba Y, Rikuta A, Yasuda G, Yamamoto A, Takamizawa H, Ando S, et al. Influence of moisture conditions on dentin bond strength of single-step self-etch adhesive systems. J Oral Sci 2006; 48: 131-7.
31. Lafuente JD, Chaves A, Carmiol R. Bond strength of dualcured resin cements to human teeth. J Esthet Dent 2000; 12: 105-10.
32. Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt K, ve digerleri MT. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mat 2007;23:71–80.
33. Pekkan G, Hekimoglu C. Evaluation of shear and tensile bond strength between dentin and ceramics using dualpolymerizing resin cements. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2009;102:242–52.
34. Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Critical Reviews of Oral Biology & Medicine 1997;8:306–35.
35.Rouse JS, Robbins JW. Porcelain veneers. In: Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, editors. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc 2006; 463–87.
36. Magne P, Douglas WH. Porcelain veneers: dentin bonding optimization and biomimetic recovery of the crown. International Journal of Prosthodontics 1999;12:111–21.
37. Armstrong SR, Boyer DB, Keller JC. Micro-tensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of two dentin adhesives. Dent Mat 1998;14:44-50.
38.Cho BH, Dickens SH. Effects of the acetone of single solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer thickness and the micro-tensile bond strength. Dent Mat 2004;20:107-15.
39. Akgungor G, Akkayan B, Gaucher H. Influence of ceramic thickness and polymerization mode of a resin-luting agent on early bond strength and durability with a lithium disilicate-based ceramic system. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2005;94:234–41. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 331 PDF Download: 1,396 |
||
