Different surface modifications combined with universal adhesives: the impact on the bonding properties of zirconia to composite resin cement
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of plasma treatment and (universal adhesives) UAs on the bonding properties of zirconia.
Material and methods
Zirconia specimens (N = 744; n = 186/pretreatment) were prepared, highly polished, and pretreated: (i) plasma (oxygen plasma, 10s, 5 mm), (ii) airborne-particle abrasion (alumina, 50 μm, 0.05 MPa, 5 s, 10 mm), (iii) airborne-particle abrasion + plasma, and (iv) without pretreatment (highly polished surface). Surface roughness (Ra) and surface free energy (SFE) were measured (n = 6/pretreatment). Tensile bond strength (TBS) specimens (n = 180/pretreatment) were further divided (n = 18/conditioning): Clearfil Ceramic Primer (PCG), All-Bond Universal (ABU), Adhese Universal (AU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB), G-Premio Bond (GPB), Futurabond U (FBU), iBond Universal (IBU), One Coat 7 Universal (OCU), Scotchbond Universal (SBU), and no conditioning. PCG was luted with Panavia F2.0 and the remaining groups with DuoCem. After storage in distilled water (24 h; 37 °C) and thermocycling (5000×; 5 °C/55 °C), TBS was measured and fracture types (FTs) were determined. Data were analyzed using univariate ANOVA with a partial eta square (ƞP2), the Kruskal–Wallis H, the Mann–Whitney U, and the Chi2 test (P < .05).
Plasma treatment resulted in an increase of SFE but had no impact on Ra. Airborne-particle abrasion resulted in the highest Ra and a higher TBS when compared with plasma and non-treatment. SBU and AU obtained a higher TBS when compared with PCG. OCU, FBU, ABU, IBU, and GPB indicated comparable TBS to PCG. CUB revealed the lowest TBS.
Plasma treatment cannot substitute airborne-particle abrasion when bonding zirconia but MDP-containing adhesives are essential for successful clinical outcomes.
Airborne-particle abrasion with a low pressure (0.05 MPa) in combination with UAs promotes the clinical success of adhesively bonded zirconia restorations.
KeywordsZirconia Surface pretreatment Oxygen plasma Air-particle abrasion Universal adhesives Tensile bond strength Surface roughness Surface free energy
The authors appreciate the material support given by 3M, Kuraray Medical and Coltène/Whaledent AG.
This study was partially financed by research grant ZF4052001MU5 AiF Projekt GmbH, ZIM-Kooperationsprojekte, Projektträger des BMWi.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by and of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 1.Johansson C, Kmet G, Rivera J, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P (2014) Fracture strength of monolithic all-ceramic crowns made of high translucent yttrium oxide-stabilized zirconium dioxide compared to porcelain-veneered crowns and lithium disilicate crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 72:145–153. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.822098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Sax C, Hämmerle CHF, Sailer I (2011) 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput Dent 14:183–202Google Scholar
- 7.Lops D, Mosca D, Casentini P, Ghisolfi M, Romeo E (2012) Prognosis of zirconia ceramic fixed partial dentures: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont 25:21–23Google Scholar
- 8.Vigolo P, Mutinelli S (2012) Evaluation of zirconium-oxide-based ceramic single-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) generated with two CAD/CAM systems compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal single-unit posterior FDPs: a 5-year clinical prospective study. J Prosthodont 21:265–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00825.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Blatz MB, Vonderheide M, Conejo J (2017) The effect of resin bonding on long-term success of high-strength ceramics. J Dent Res 22034517729134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517729134
- 16.Blatz MB (2002) Long-term clinical success of all-ceramic posterior restorations. Quintessence Int 33:415–426Google Scholar
- 25.Blatz MB, Alvarez M, Sawyer K et al (2016) How to bond zirconia: the APC concept. Compend Contin Educ Dent 37:611–617Google Scholar
- 33.Hallmann L, Ulmer P, Wille S, Polonskyi O, Köbel S, Trottenberg T, Bornholdt S, Haase F, Kersten H, Kern M (2016) Effect of surface treatments on the properties and morphological change of dental zirconia. J Prosthet Dent 115:341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Mattiello RDL, Coelho TMK, Insaurralde E, Coelho AAK, Terra GP, Kasuya AVB, Favarão IN, Gonçalves LS, Fonseca RB (2013) A review of surface treatment methods to improve the adhesive cementation of zirconia-based ceramics. ISRN Biomaterials 2013:1–10. https://doi.org/10.5402/2013/185376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Vechiato-Filho AJ, Matos AO, Landers R, Goiato MC, Rangel EC, de Souza GM, Barão VAR, dos Santos DM (2017) Surface analysis and shear bond strength of zirconia on resin cements after non-thermal plasma treatment and/or primer application for metallic alloys. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 72:284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.11.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Vilas Boas Fernandes Júnior V, Barbosa Dantas DC, Bresciani E et al (2018) Evaluation of the bond strength and characteristics of zirconia after different surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent [Article in press]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.029