The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Monolithic Zirconia Copings Influenced by Luting Agents and Finish Line Design

Siddhi S Sardar, Ajay V Sabane, Rupali V Patil, Rajashree D Jadhav, Abhijit A Patil, Charushila S Sardar

Keywords : Bond strength, CAD/CAM, Finish lines, Luting agents, Monolithic zirconia

Citation Information : Sardar SS, Sabane AV, Patil RV, Jadhav RD, Patil AA, Sardar CS. In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Monolithic Zirconia Copings Influenced by Luting Agents and Finish Line Design. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (3):343-350.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3255

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 24-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the bond strength of CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia copings using three luting agents and two different finish lines. Materials and methods: For the evaluation of bond strength, 60 extracted human maxillary first premolars were prepared to receive CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia copings. They were randomly divided into six groups of 10 samples each to receive CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia copings to bond with three different luting agents on two different finish lines. The luting agents used were RelyX U200, RMGIC, and Maxcem Elite with finish lines which were incorporated were 90° shoulder and radial shoulder finish lines. The tensile bond strength for all 60 samples was tested using the universal testing machine. Results: Between and within the group differences in tensile bond strength were analyzed using one-way ANOVA test of significance with Tukey's post-hoc analysis. The statistical analysis revealed that the CAD/CAM zirconia copings used a combination of 90° shoulder and RelyX U200 as the luting agent (Group II) which offered the maximum bond strength. Conclusion: Within the constraints of this study, it could be concluded that CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia copings luted with RelyX U200 cement on a 90° shoulder finish line is the preferred method, taking the bond strength into consideration. Clinical significance: The results of this study can be extrapolated into a clinical scenario to help the clinician decide the most apt combination of finish line design and the luting agent to achieve superior bond strengths in CAD/CAM zirconia crowns and fixed dental prosthesis.


PDF Share
  1. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary materials and technologies for all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(6):557–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.015.
  2. Özkurt-Kayahan Z. Monolithic zirconia: a review of the literature. Biomedical Res 2016;27(4):1427–1436.
  3. Alsarani M, De Souza G, Rizkalla A, et al. Influence of crown design and material on chipping-resistance of all-ceramic molar crowns: an in vitro study. Dent Med Probl 2018;55(1):35–42. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/85000.
  4. Aleisa K, Alwazzan K, Al-Dwairi ZN, et al. Retention of zirconium oxide copings using different types of luting agents. J Dent Sci 2013;8(4):392–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2013.03.003.
  5. Palacios R, Johnson GH, Phillips KM, et al. Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96(2):104–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.06.001.
  6. Ernst CP, Cohnen U, Stender E, et al. In vitro retentive strength of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns using different luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(6):551–558. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.04.011.
  7. Singh M, Gupta S, Nagpal A, et al. Evaluation of influence of thermocycling on shear bond strength of two different zirconia systems bonded to dentin using resin cements–an in vitro study. OHDM 2016;15(2). DOI:10.4172/2247-2452.1000880.
  8. Stona P, Borges GA, Montes MA, et al. Effect of polyacrylic acid on the interface and bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2013;15(3):221. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a29531.
  9. Sulaimann TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Altitinchi A, et al. Effect of resin-modified glass ionomer cement dispensing/mixing methods on mechanical properties. Oper Dent 2018;43(4):E158–E165. DOI: 10.2341/17-166-L.
  10. Pedreira AP, D'Alpino PH, Pereira PN, et al. Effects of the application techniques of self-adhesive resin cements on the interfacial integrity. JAOS 2016;24(5):437–446. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150600.
  11. Ribeiro ILA, Campos F, Sousa RS, et al. Marginal and internal discrepancies of zirconia copings. Indian J Dent Res 2015;26(1):15. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.156790.
  12. Alzahrani AM, Beyari AM, Emam ZN. The influence of the cervical finish line designs on the fracture resistance of CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns. Int J Health Sci Res 2018;8(2):101.
  13. Al-Zubaidi ZAK, Al-Shamma AMW. The effect of different finishing lines on the marginal fitness of full contour zirconia and glass ceramic CAD/CAM crowns. JDMT 2015;4(3):127. DOI: 10.22038/jdmt.2015.4595.
  14. Narula S, Punia V, Khandelwal M, et al. Retention in conventional fixed partial dentures. J Clin Diagn Res 2011;5(5):1128–1133.
  15. Madfa A, Sanabani FA, Al-Qudami NH, et al. Use of zirconia in dentistry: an overview. Open Biomater J 2014;5:1–9. DOI: 10.2174/1876502501405010001.
  16. Ozer F, Naden A, Turp V, et al. Effect of thickness and surface modifications on flexural strength of monolithic zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(6):987–993. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.007.
  17. Blatz MB, Conejo J. Cementation and bonding of zirconia restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2018;39(4):9–13. PMID: 30299107.
  18. Weigl P, Sander A, Wu Y, et al. In-vitro performance and fracture strength of thin monolithic zirconia crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(2):79–84. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.79.
  19. Zhang R, Ding Q, Sun Y, et al. Assessment of CAD-CAM zirconia crowns designed with 2 different methods: a self-controlled clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(5):686–692. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.027.
  20. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, et al. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res 2013;57(4):236–261. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2013.09.001.
  21. Cerqueira LAC, Costa AR, Spohr AM, et al. Effect of dentin preparation mode on the bond strength between human dentin and different resin cements. Brazil Dent J 2018;29(3):268–274. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201801809.
  22. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(3):268–274. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.50.
  23. Blatz MB, Alvarez M, Sawyer K, et al. How to bond zirconia: the APC concept. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2016;37(9):611–617. PMID: 27700128.
  24. Krishnan GA. Effect of coping design on the fracture resistance of pressable zirconia core ceramics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Horace H Rackham School of Graduate Studies, The University of Michigan; 2010.
  25. Manso AP, Silva N, Bonfante EA, et al. Cements and adhesives for all-ceramic restorations. EPMC 2011;55(2):311–332. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.01.011.
  26. Lee SE, Bae JH, Choi JW, et al. Comparative shear-bond strength of six dental self-adhesive resin cements to zirconia. Materials (Basel) 2015;8(6):3306–3315. DOI: 10.3390/ma8063306.
  27. Hoshika S, Munck JD, Sano H, et al. Effect of conditioning and aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(2):141–146. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33994.
  28. Saad A, Inoue G, Nikaido T, et al. Microtensile bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement to sound and artificial caries–affected root dentin with different conditioning. Oper Dent 2017;42(6):626–635. DOI: 10.2341/16-375-L.
  29. Senyilmaz DP, Palin WM, Shortall AC, et al. The effect of surface preparation and luting agent on bond strength to a zirconium-based ceramic. Oper Dent 2007;32(6):623–630. DOI: 10.2341/07-14.
  30. Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel–dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005;21(10):895–910. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.001.
  31. Pathak S, Shashibhushan KK, Poornima P, et al. In vitro evaluation of stainless steel crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer and two new self-adhesive resin cements. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):197–200. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1363.
  32. Yang L, Xie H, Meng H, et al. Effects of luting cements and surface conditioning on composite bonding performance to zirconia. J Adhes Dent 2018;20(6):549–558. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a41634.
  33. Borges R, Graeff CF, Marchi J, et al. Bonding reactions of dental self-adhesive cements with synthetic hydroxyapatite as a function of the polymerization protocol. Hindawi Sci World J 2021;2021:1–13. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4572345.
  34. Hammal M, Chlup Z, Ingr T, et al. Effectiveness of dentin pre-treatment on bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements compared to an etch-and-rinse system: an in vitro study. Peer J 2021;9:e11736. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11736.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.