Premium
Tensile bond strength of resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement to microabraded and silica‐coated or tin‐plated high noble ceramic alloy
Author(s) -
Swartz Jeffrey M.,
Davis Richard D.,
Overton Johnnie D.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00195.x
Subject(s) - materials science , glass ionomer cement , cement , bond strength , ultimate tensile strength , universal testing machine , composite material , tin , plating (geology) , dentistry , metallurgy , medicine , adhesive , layer (electronics) , geophysics , geology
Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of alloy surface microabrasion, silica coating, or microabrasion plus tin plating on the tensile bond strengths between a resin‐modified glass‐ionomer luting cement and a high‐noble alloy. Bond strength between the microabraded alloy specimens and conventional glass‐ionomer cement or resin cement were included for comparison. Materials and Methods One hundred twenty uniform size, disk‐shaped specimens were cast in a noble metal alloy and divided into 6 groups (n = 10 pairs/group). The metal surfaces of the specimens in each group were treated and cemented as follows. Group 1: No surface treatment (as cast, control), cemented with a resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement. Group 2: Microabrasion with 50‐μm aluminum oxide particles, resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement. Group 3: A laboratory microabrasion and silica coating system, resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement. Group 4: Microabrasion and tin‐plating, resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement. Group 5: Microabrasion only, conventional glass‐ionomer cement. Group 6: Microabrasion and tin‐plating, conventional resin cement. The uniaxial tensile bond strength for each specimen pair was determined using an Instron Universal Testing Machine (Instron Corp, Canton, MA). Results were analyzed using a one‐way analysis of variance (α= 0.05) and a Tukey post‐hoc analysis. Results Mean bond strength: Group 1: 3.6 (±1.5) MPa. Group 2: 4.2 (±0.5) MPa. Group 3: 6.7 (±0.9) MPa. Group 4: 10.6 (±1.8) MPa. Group 5: 1.1 (±0.4) MPa. Group 6: 14.6 (±2.3) MPa. Group 6 was significantly stronger than Group 4. The bond strength of specimens cemented with the resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement using microabrasion and tin‐plating (Group 4) was significantly stronger than all other groups except the resin cement with microabrasion and tin‐plating (Group 6). Conclusion Microabraded and tin‐plated alloy specimens luted with the resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement resulted in the greatest mean tensile strengths for the resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement groups. This strength was 73% of the mean tensile strength of microabraded specimens luted with resin cement.