A comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of porcelain and composite using different bonding agents - An in vitro study

Do different protocols affect the success rate or bond strength of glass-ceramics repaired with composite resin? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral repair techniques prevent unnecessary replacement of ceramic restorations, thereby increasing the survival rate. However, adhesion between ceramics and the composite resin is challenging and how different protocols influence adhesion is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the influence of different protocols on repairing glass-ceramic surfaces with composite resins.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases were searched to select studies comparing bond strength values or survival rates of glass-ceramic repaired with composite resins using different surface treatment protocols. No publication year or language restriction was applied. Data sets were extracted from all included studies, and the mean differences calculated. A 95% confidence interval was calculated by using the random effect model (Rev Man 5.4).

RESULTS

The search identified 5037 studies, and 165 were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 123 in vitro studies were included in the systematic review and 48 in the meta-analysis. Considering different glass-ceramics, bond strength tests, and aged or not aged specimens, 37 meta-analyses found the effect of repair protocols: only adhesive, silane plus adhesive alone or preceded by hydrofluoric (HF) acid, airborne-particle abrasion (APA) with Al2O3 particles, silica-coated APA (SCAPA), diamond rotary instrument (DRI), and laser irradiation (LI).

CONCLUSIONS

For feldspathic porcelain, HF acid, APA, SCAPA, or DRI improved the repair micromechanical retention; applying silane is essential to HF-conditioned surfaces but the use of adhesive is optional when silane is applied. Results for leucite and lithium disilicate were inconclusive in terms of suggesting a treatment other than HF acid plus silane and adhesive applications.

Shear Bond Strengths of Methacrylate- and Silorane-based Composite Resins to Feldspathic Porcelain using Different Adhesive Systems

Background and aims. Use of porcelain as inlays, laminates and metal-ceramic and all-ceramic crowns is common in modern dentistry. The high cost of ceramic restorations, time limitations and difficulty of removing these restorations result in delays in replacing fractured restorations; therefore, their repair is indicated. The aim of the present study was to compare the shear bond strengths of two types of composite resins (methacrylate-based and silorane-based) to porcelain, using three adhesive types.

Materials and methods. A total of 156 samples of feldspathic porcelain surfaces were prepared with air-abrasion and randomly divided into 6 groups (n=26). In groups 1-3, Z250 composite resin was used to repair porcelain samples with Ad-per Single Bond 2 (ASB), Clearfil SE Bond (CSB) and Silorane Adhesive (SA) as the bonding systems, afterapplication of silane, respectively. In groups 4-6, the same adhesives were used in the same manner with Filtek Silorane composite resin. Finally, the shear bond strengths of the samples were measured. Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were used to compare bond strengths between the groups with different adhesives at P<0.05.

Results. There were significant differences in the mean bond strength values in terms of the adhesive type (P<0.001). In addition, the interactive effect of the adhesive type and composite resin type had no significant effect on bond strength (P=0.602).

Conclusion. The results of the present study showed the highest repair bond strength values to porcelain with both composite resin types with the application of SA and ASB.