In Vitro Comparison of the Bond Strength between Ceramic Repair Systems and Ceramic Materials and Evaluation of the Wettability

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.

Intraoral repair of fractured ceramics: a literature review

Background: Fracture or chipping of veneering ceramic resulting in aesthetic and functional issues is a frequent technical complication encountered with fixed dental prostheses. Treatment options include extraoral or intraoral repair of the ceramic restoration; the latter being minimally invasive and cost-effective. We reviewed the various intraoral repair techniques for ceramic fractures and their efficiency in the last decade. Methods: A literature search was carried out between 2017 and 2022 using the PubMed database with keywords: intraoral, repair, ceramics, porcelain, and 'porcelain fused to metal'. Screening of abstracts and full texts was carried out to determine the final list of eligible studies. Results:  Twenty-one eligible studies were included in the review which consisted of 17 in vitro studies, three case reports, and one prospective clinical study. Researchers and dentists preferred repairing cracked veneered zirconia-based restorations intraorally if the restoration is in acceptable condition. However, successful intraoral repair of veneering fractures relies on the bond between the previous restoration and the new repair material, the right adhesive resin, and adequate surface conditioning. The review indicated that the best technique to fix chipping in a complex made of zirconia core and veneering ceramic is to treat the veneering ceramic with hydrofluoric acid before covering the core ceramic with silica. Conclusion: Intraoral repair is an efficient and economic procedure without the need for repeated sessions. However, the success and longevity of the restoration rely on the technical skills of the clinicians and adherence to prescribed protocols.

Intraoral repair of a chipped porcelain-zirconia restoration

OBJECTIVE

Ceramic fracture is an undesirable outcome of the rehabilitation with fixed partial dentures (FPD), mainly because it may involve additional cost and clinical time for intraoral repair or replacement of the restoration. This clinical report describes a 5 years survival intraoral repair of a chipped porcelain veneered zirconia framework restoration using a resin-based composite.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A FPD of porcelain veneered zirconia was made. After 18 months, the FPD presented a porcelain chip (porcelain fracture without exposure to the zirconia structure) on the buccal side of the pontic. An epoxy resin replica of the fractured surface was obtained and was examined under scanning electron microscopy. Fracture origin was found at the cervical area of the pontic. Intraoral repair by bonding the chipped fragment back in place was performed. After 15 days, the porcelain fragment debonded without patient knowledge and the fragment was lost. Then, intraoral repair using composite resin to restore the fractured area was performed and is still in function to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the 5-years survival of the performed intraoral repair, the composite resin reconstruction technique has shown to be an adequate alternative treatment for fractured FPD.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A resin composite repair of the fracture site can be performed in one clinical session, using much less time and cost than for the replacement of FPD. This clinical case survived 5 years to date.

Influence of Primers and Additional Resin Layer on Zirconia Repair Bond Strength

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of alloy/zirconia primer and 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing resin layer treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite resin to zirconia after aging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty zirconia (Y-TZP) blocks were air-abraded (35-µm Al₂ O₃ ) and divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 10) in terms of primer/resin layer as follows: (1) control, without any primer or resin; (2) AP, Alloy Primer; (3) ZPP, Z-Prime Plus; (4) PL/ZPP, Z-Prime Plus with light polymerization; (5) AP+SEB, Alloy Primer along with light-cured bonding resin of a self-etch adhesive system (SE Bond); and (6) ZPP+SEB, Z-Prime Plus with SE Bond. After composite resin placement and light polymerization, the specimens were stored in distilled water (37°C for 4 months) and thermal-cycled for 6000 cycles. The SBS was tested with a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis of the SBS data was performed with one-way ANOVA, followed by HSD Tukey test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the groups (p < 0.001, F = 116.5). All the groups revealed significantly higher SBS than the control (p < 0.001). ZPP+SEB group exhibited the highest SBS (16.14 ± 2.52 MPa) and AP group the lowest SBS (7.00 ± 1.97 MPa) among experimental groups; both had significant differences with the other groups (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between ZPP, PL/ZPP, and AP+SEB groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The bond strength between zirconia ceramic and composite resin was affected by different primers/resin layer. Applying an MDP-containing resin layer along with both primers resulted in significant enhancement of SBS. This improvement for Z-Prime Plus was significantly higher than that of Alloy Primer.