Ahmed Attia1, Matthias Kern. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Egypt. aattia@mans.edu.eg
Abstract
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Excellent esthetic quality is one of the major advantages of all-ceramic restorations; however, catastrophic fracture of such restorations is still a disadvantage. Ceramic bonding systems using ceramic primers without the use of hydrofluoric acid have been introduced, but data about the efficiency of these systems are lacking. PURPOSE: This study investigated the influence of 2 bonding procedures on the fracture resistance of low-fusing ceramic and computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) all-ceramic crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two standardized all-ceramic crowns were fabricated on human maxillary premolars. Seven unprepared maxillary premolars were used as control. Three all-ceramic crown systems were used: 1 low-fusing ceramic (Duceram) and 2 machineable ceramics (Vita Mark II and ProCAD) using the Cerec 3 CAD-CAM system. The intaglio surfaces of fabricated crowns (n=7) were subjected to 2 different conditioning techniques: etching, using 4.9% hydrofluoric acid followed by application of Mirage ABC silane, or cleaning, using 65% phosphoric acid and application of primer (Porcelain Liner-M). The crowns were luted to the teeth using Superbond C&B luting agent. After 24 hours storage in water, specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine with the compressive load applied along the long axis of the specimen at a crosshead speed 1 mm/min until fracture. Fracture loads (N) were recorded. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey HSD test (alpha=.05) were used for statistical analysis of the data. RESULTS: The mean fracture load of control specimens (738.3+/-195.3 N) was not significantly different from that of the 2 CAD-CAM crowns (667.7+/-72.3 N, 715.9+/-105.2 N). However, fracture load of natural teeth and the 2 CAD-CAM crowns was significantly higher than the fracture load of the low-fusing ceramic crowns treated with HF acid and silane (465.5+/-101.1 N) and, when cleaned, using phosphoric acid and an application of primer (447.5+/-63.4 N) (P<.05). There was no significant difference in the mean fracture load of each ceramic material when bonded using the 2 different procedures, either treated with HF acid and silane or cleaned using phosphoric acid and application of primer (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The application of a primer (Procelain Liner-M) was an effective method for treating the intaglio surface of all-ceramic crowns before cementation.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Excellent esthetic quality is one of the major advantages of all-ceramic restorations; however, catastrophic fracture of such restorations is still a disadvantage. Ceramic bonding systems using ceramic primers without the use of hydrofluoric acid have been introduced, but data about the efficiency of these systems are lacking. PURPOSE: This study investigated the influence of 2 bonding procedures on the fracture resistance of low-fusing ceramic and computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) all-ceramic crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two standardized all-ceramic crowns were fabricated on human maxillary premolars. Seven unprepared maxillary premolars were used as control. Three all-ceramic crown systems were used: 1 low-fusing ceramic (Duceram) and 2 machineable ceramics (Vita Mark II and ProCAD) using the Cerec 3 CAD-CAM system. The intaglio surfaces of fabricated crowns (n=7) were subjected to 2 different conditioning techniques: etching, using 4.9% hydrofluoric acid followed by application of Mirage ABC silane, or cleaning, using 65% phosphoric acid and application of primer (Porcelain Liner-M). The crowns were luted to the teeth using Superbond C&B luting agent. After 24 hours storage in water, specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine with the compressive load applied along the long axis of the specimen at a crosshead speed 1 mm/min until fracture. Fracture loads (N) were recorded. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey HSD test (alpha=.05) were used for statistical analysis of the data. RESULTS: The mean fracture load of control specimens (738.3+/-195.3 N) was not significantly different from that of the 2 CAD-CAM crowns (667.7+/-72.3 N, 715.9+/-105.2 N). However, fracture load of natural teeth and the 2 CAD-CAM crowns was significantly higher than the fracture load of the low-fusing ceramic crowns treated with HF acid and silane (465.5+/-101.1 N) and, when cleaned, using phosphoric acid and an application of primer (447.5+/-63.4 N) (P<.05). There was no significant difference in the mean fracture load of each ceramic material when bonded using the 2 different procedures, either treated with HF acid and silane or cleaned using phosphoric acid and application of primer (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The application of a primer (Procelain Liner-M) was an effective method for treating the intaglio surface of all-ceramic crowns before cementation.