Home Subscription Services

The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
JAD Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: JAD


The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Edited by Prof. Dr. Roland Frankenberger, Prof. Bart Van Meerbeek

ISSN (print) 1461-5185 • ISSN (online) 1757-9988


Winter 2000
Volume 2 , Issue 4

Pages: 305-313
Share Abstract:

Microtensile Strength of Composite Bonded to Hot-pressed Ceramics.

Bona, Alvaro Della; Anusavice, Kenneth J.; Shen, Chiayi

Purpose: The objective of this in vitro study employing the microtensile test was to test the hypothesis that the tensile bond strength of hot-pressed ceramics to composite is controlled by the ceramic microstructure and the ceramic surface treatment. Materials and Methods: Hot-pressed IPS Empress (E1) and IPS Empress 2 (E2) ceramic blocks were polished with 1-Ám alumina abrasive and treated as follows: group 1: 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (HF) on E1; group 2: 4% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) on E1; group 3: silane (S) on E1; group 4: HF + S on E1; group 5: APF + S on E1; group 6: HF on E2; group 7: APF on E2; group 8: S on E2; group 9: HF + S on E2; group 10: APF + S on E2. The surfaces as described above were then treated with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus and covered with composite (Z-100). From the blocks obtained in this manner, specimens for microtensile testing were created by sectioning. Twenty bar specimens for each group were loaded to failure under tension using an Instron testing machine. Results: Mean tensile bond strength (MPa) and standard deviation values are as follows: (1) 9.9 ▒ 1.2; (2) 0; (3) 27.2 ▒ 4.8; (4) 20.6 ▒ 3.0; (5) 13.6 ▒ 4.5; (6) 41.7 ▒ 6.7; (7) 19.1 ▒ 2.6; (8) 30.1 ▒ 5.3; (9) 56.1 ▒ 4.1; (10) 36.9 ▒ 3.9. All fractures occurred within the adhesion zone. SEM images of chemically etched specimens revealed that HF produced greater surface degradation and greater bond strength than APF for both E1 and E2 ceramics. The mean bond strength of groups 6 through 10 (E2) was significantly greater than that of groups 1 through 5 (E1) for each treatment condition. Conclusion: The tensile fracture resistance of the composite-ceramic adhesion zones is controlled primarily by ceramic microstructure and ceramic surface treatment.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


  © 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog