PURPOSE: To compare the bond strength values and the ranking order of three phosphate monomer containing resin cements using microtensile (microTBS) and microshear (microSBS) bond strength tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Zirconia discs (Procera Zirconia) were bonded to resin composite discs (Filtek Z250) using three different cements (Panavia F 2.0, RelyX UniCem, and Multilink). Two bond strength tests were used to determine zirconia resin bond strength; microtensile bond strength test (microTBS) and microshear bond strength test (microSBS). Ten specimens were tested for each group (n=10). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: There were statistical significant differences in bond strength values and in the ranking order obtained using the two test methods. microTBS reported significant differences in bond strength values, whereas microSBS failed to detect such effect. Both Multilink and Panavia demonstrated basically cohesive failure in the resin cement while RelyX UniCem demonstrated interfacial failure. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, the data obtained using either microTBS or microSBS could not be directly compared. microTBS was more sensitive to material differences compared to microSBS which failed to detect such differences. Copyright 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To compare the bond strength values and the ranking order of three phosphate monomer containing resin cements using microtensile (microTBS) and microshear (microSBS) bond strength tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Zirconia discs (Procera Zirconia) were bonded to resin composite discs (Filtek Z250) using three different cements (Panavia F 2.0, RelyX UniCem, and Multilink). Two bond strength tests were used to determine zirconia resin bond strength; microtensile bond strength test (microTBS) and microshear bond strength test (microSBS). Ten specimens were tested for each group (n=10). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: There were statistical significant differences in bond strength values and in the ranking order obtained using the two test methods. microTBS reported significant differences in bond strength values, whereas microSBS failed to detect such effect. Both Multilink and Panavia demonstrated basically cohesive failure in the resin cement while RelyX UniCem demonstrated interfacial failure. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, the data obtained using either microTBS or microSBS could not be directly compared. microTBS was more sensitive to material differences compared to microSBS which failed to detect such differences. Copyright 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.