Abstract:
The purpose of this study was toThe effectiveness of two types of ceramic, repaired using a resin composite and a universal adhesive were compared to a conventional adhesive. The effectiveness of two types of ceramic, repaired using a resin composite and a universal adhesive were compared to a conventional adhesive. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic ingots (IPS Empress® Esthetic; “EE”; Ivoclar Vivadent, Germany) and lithium-disilicate glass ceramic ingots (IPS e.max® Press; “EM”; Ivoclar Vivadent, Germany) were fabricated into a ceramic block size 8x8x4 mm. The ceramic surfaces were wet polished with silicon carbide paper and then treated with 9.5 % hydrofluoric acid (Ultradent® Porcelain Etch; Ultradent, USA). Resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT; 3M ESPE, USA), shade A4, was built up with two adhesive systems, one half (“U”) using universal dental adhesive (Single BondTM Universal; 3M ESPE, USA) and the other (“C”) using total etch dental adhesive (AdperTM ScotchbondTM Multipurpose Plus; 3M ESPE, USA) combined with ceramic primer (RelyxTM Ceramic Primer; 3M ESPE, USA). The specimens were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and then subjected to thermocycling for 10,000 cycles prior to a microtensile bond strength (µTBS) test. Modes of failure were analyzed using a stereomicroscope (ML 9300; MEIJI, Japan). Three-way ANOVA and a Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to analyze the data (n = 36, α = 0.05). There was no significant difference between the immediate and aging groups (p = 0.207). However, a Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed significant differences among all tested groups. The highest µTBS was recorded by the “EMC” group (36.3±13.1), while the lowest was found in the “EEU” group (22.0±7.9). The µTBS between the resin composite and ceramic repaired using a conventional adhesive system was higher compared with a universal adhesive system, especially in the lithium disilicate type.
