Kathy L. O'Keefe

Bond strength of orthodontic composite cement to treated porcelain.

A porcelain-fused-to-metal ceramic was prepared for bonding by five treatments: sandblasting, sandblasting and silanating, hydrofluoric acid etching, hydrofluoric acid etching and silanating, and 600-grit polishing and silanating. Two commercial, all-purpose bonding agents were used to bond a composite cement to the porcelain samples. In vitro tensile bond strengths were compared with samples for which no bonding agent was used. Highest bond strengths (22 to 41 MPa) were obtained, with one exception, when the porcelain surface was silanated; however, the use of silane increased the occurrence of porcelain fracture on debonding. Composite cement bonded without bonding agent to nonsilanated porcelain prepared by sandblasting or etching with hydrofluoric acid had bond strengths of 6.5 MPa and 18 MPa, respectively, with all bond failures at the bracket/composite interface. The use of all-purpose bonding agents and silanating agents may not be necessary for adequate orthodontic direct bonding.

Factors affecting in vitro bond strength of bonding agents to human dentin.

Four generations of total-etch (fourth, fifth) and self-etching (sixth, seventh) bonding agents for use with resin composites are commercially available in the United States. Innovations in bonding agents include: filled systems, release of fluoride and other agents, unit dose, self-cured catalyst, option of etching with either phosphoric acid or self-etching primer, and pH indicators. Factors that can affect in vitro bond strength to human dentin include substrate (superficial dentin, deep dentin; permanent versus primary teeth; artificial carious dentin), phosphoric acid versus acidic primers, preparation by air abrasion and laser, moisture, contaminants, desensitizing agents, astringents, and self-cured restorative materials. This article reviews studies conducted at the Houston Biomaterials Research Center from 1993 to 2003. Results show that in vitro bond strengths can be reduced by more than 50% when bonding conditions are not ideal.

Force needed to separate acrylic resin from primed and unprimed frameworks of different designs

PURPOSE Poor mechanical and chemical bondings at the interface between a framework and denture base resin have been responsible for many removable partial denture failures. This study tested the force necessary to separate acrylic resin bases from test frameworks using different acrylic retention designs (smooth metal plate, metal plate with bead retention, lattice retention, and mesh retention). The force needed to separate acrylic resin from primed test frameworks was also measured. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty chromium-cobalt test frameworks were fabricated using preformed wax patterns and cast according to manufacturers instructions. Half the specimens were primed prior to acrylic processing. The same base acrylic was used for all specimens. Separation forces that fractured acrylic resin from test frameworks were generated by a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 25 mm/min. Loads at failure and types of failure were recorded. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. RESULTS The mean separation force of acrylic resin from unprimed retention designs was highest for the metal plate with beads (3.1 kN), followed by mesh (2.8 kN) and lattice (2.1 kN), and lowest (0.1 kN) for the smooth metal plate. The mean separation force for primed acrylic retention designs was highest for the metal plate with beads (4.2 kN), followed by mesh (3.4 kN) and smooth metal plate (3.0 kN), and lowest for lattice retention (2.6 kN). Bond failure occurred both adhesively at the interface between metal and acrylic resin and cohesively within the acrylic resin. Cohesive bond failure increased when specimens were primed. The rate of cohesive bond failure remained the same for primed mesh retention specimens. CONCLUSIONS Significantly increased force was necessary to separate the acrylic from each design of primed test specimens compared with unprimed specimens of the same design. The primed metal plate with beads exhibited significantly greater separation force than the other three designs. Primed mesh had significantly greater separation force values than primed lattice and smooth metal plate. Primed lattice was significantly less retentive than the other three primed designs. Except for the retentive mesh specimens, there was higher occurrence of cohesive failures in the acrylic resin when the frameworks were primed.

In vitro tensile bond strength of denture repair acrylic resins to primed base metal alloys using two different processing techniques

PURPOSE Approximately 38% of removable partial denture (RPD) failures involve fracture at the alloy/acrylic interface. Autopolymerizing resin is commonly used to repair RPDs. Poor chemical bonding of repair acrylic to base metal alloys can lead to microleakage and failure of the bond. Therefore, ideal repair techniques should provide a strong, adhesive bond. This investigation compared the tensile bond strength between cobalt-chromium (Super Cast, Pentron Laboratory Technologies, Llc., Wallingford, CT) and nickel-chromium (Rexalloy, Pentron Laboratory Technologies, Llc.) alloys and autopolymerized acrylic resin (Dentsply Repair Material, Dentsply Int, Inc, York, Pa) using three primers containing different functional monomers [UBar (UB), Sun Medical Co., Ltd., Shiga, Japan: Alloy Primer (AP) Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan; and MR Bond (MRB) Tokyuyama Dental Corp., Tokyo, Japan] and two processing techniques (bench cure and pressure-pot cure). MATERIAL AND METHODS One hundred and twenty eight base metal alloy ingots were polished, air abraded, and ultrasonically cleaned. The control group was not primed. Specimens in the test groups were primed with one of the three metal primers. Autopolymerized acrylic resin material was bonded to the metal surfaces. Half the specimens were bench cured, and the other half were cured in a pressure pot. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C. The specimens were debonded under tension at a crosshead speed of 0.05 cm/min. The forces at which the bond failed were noted. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Fishers PLSD post hoc test was used to determine significant differences (p < 0.05). Failure modes of each specimen were evaluated under a dissecting microscope. RESULTS Significant differences in bond strength were observed between combinations of primers, curing methods, and alloys. Primed sandblasted specimens that were pressure-pot-cured had significantly higher bond strengths than primed sandblasted bench-cured specimens. The pressure-pot-curing method had a significant effect on bond strength of all specimens except Co-Cr alloy primed with UB. The highest bond strength was observed for both Co-Cr and Ni-Cr alloys that were sandblasted, primed with MRB, and pressure-pot cured. Co-Cr alloys primed with UB had the lowest bond strength whether bench cured or pressure-pot cured. Primed specimens generally experienced cohesive bond failures within the primer or acrylic resin. Nonprimed specimens generally experienced adhesive bond failures at the resin/metal interface. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, MRB provided the highest bond strength to both Ni-Cr and Co-Cr alloys. Generally, bond strength improved significantly when specimens were primed. Pressure-pot curing, in most cases, resulted in higher bond strength than bench curing. The results of this in vitro study suggest that MRB metal primer can be used to increase bond strength of autopolymerized repair acrylic resin to base metal alloys. Curing autopolymerized acrylic under pressure potentially increases bond strength.