The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2009 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Influence of Adhesive Luting Systems on Bond Strength and Failure Mode of an Indirect Micro Ceramic Resin-based Composite Veneer

Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri, Nasrin Sarabi, Azadeh Forooghbakhsh

Citation Information : Ghavamnasiri M, Sarabi N, Forooghbakhsh A. The Influence of Adhesive Luting Systems on Bond Strength and Failure Mode of an Indirect Micro Ceramic Resin-based Composite Veneer. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10 (1):33-40.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-10-1-33

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-01-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2009; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

This study evaluated the bond strength and failure mode of enamel/resin-based composite veneers bonded with three different dual cured resin adhesive systems.

Methods and Materials

Standard preparations for laminate veneer restorations were made on 30 human central incisors using depth cutting burs (0.5 mm depth at the incisal area and 0.3 mm at the gingival area). Thirty indirect laminates were prepared using a highly filled polymeric material (GC Gradia) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After sandblasting the fitting surfaces, the specimens were randomly divided into three groups (ten per group) based on the type of resin cement luting systems; Excite/Variolink II, Single Bond/ Rely X Veneer Cement, and Clearfil New Bond/Panavia F. The specimens were stored in water at 37°C for 48 hours. Fracture testing was performed using a universal testing machine where the load was applied from the incisal direction at 135° to the long axis of the tooth (0.5 mm/min). The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-Square tests were used for statistical analysis at a significance level of p>0.05.

Results

The ANOVA showed no significant difference was found among the groups (P>0.05). Indirect veneers showed mean enamel bond strength of 114.4 ± 48N, 159.7 ± 83.4 N, and 126.1 ± 51.7 N with Variolink II, Rely X veneer cement, and Panavia F, respectively. The Chi-Square tests showed no significant difference regarding the failure mode frequencies in different types of failure in the three groups (p>0.05). The failure mode analysis showed mainly adhesive failure in the resin cement/laminate interface in all groups.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in bond strength of veneers with the three different resin cements tested. In addition, there was no significant difference in the frequency of the failure mode in each type of failure among the three test groups. The failure analysis revealed mainly an adhesive failure at the resin cement/veneer interface.

Clinical Significance

The results of this study suggest the use of Excite/Variolink, Single Bond/RelyX, or Clearfil New Bond/Panavia F are all appropriate choices for luting of indirect micro ceramic resin-based composite veneers in terms of bond strength and failure mode.

Citation

Sarabi N, Ghavamnasiri M, Forooghbakhsh A. The Influence of Adhesive Luting Systems on Bond Strength and Failure Mode of an Indirect Micro Ceramic Resin-based Composite Veneer. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 January; (10)1:033-040.


PDF Share
  1. Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stain. Evid Based Dent 2004; 5:43.
  2. Bonded porcelain veneer. Rev Belqe Med Dent 2006; 61:47-64.
  3. What is veneer? J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 61:9-12.
  4. Treatment of composite surface for indirect bonding. Dent Mater 1992; 8:193-196.
  5. Surface treatment of indirect resin composite surface before cementation. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77:568-572.
  6. Fracture strength of direct versus indirect laminates with and without fiber application at the cementation interface. Dent Mater 2006;6 [Epub ahead of print].
  7. Effect of two abrasive systems on resin bonding to laboratory processed indirect resin composite restorations. J Esthet Dent. 1999; 11(4):185-96.
  8. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9:319-326.
  9. Shear bond strength of three different resin luting cements to bovine teeth. Gen Dent 2005; 53:38-42.
  10. Influence of light – activated and auto - and dual polymerizing adhesive systems on bond strength of indirect composite resin to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96:115-121.
  11. J Adhes Dent. 2006; 8:337-341.
  12. Fracture Load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83:171-180.
  13. Advantages and limitations in the use of porcelain and castable ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64:406-411.
  14. Int J Preriodontics Restorative Dent 1992; 12:407-413.
  15. Shear bond strength of resin lusting cement to laboratory made composite resin veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66;314-321.
  16. Effect of a priming age of bond strength of indirect composite to dentin using cement systems. European cells and materials 2007; 13:46.
  17. Anterior ceramic crowns In: Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, dos Santos J, eds. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry, Chicago: Quintessence, 2006:509.
  18. The effect of dentin adhesive and cure mode on film thickness and micro tensile bond strength to dentin in indirect restorations. Oper Dent 2005; 30:50-57.
  19. Effect of curing mode on microtesile bond strength to dentin of two dual adhesive systems in combination with resin luting cements for indirect restoration. Oper Dent 2007; 32:37-44.
  20. Assessment of bite force. A review. J Croniomandibular Disord 1987; 1:162-169.
  21. Effect of three surface conditioning method to improve bond strength particulate fiber resin composite. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16(2005), PP.21-27.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.