Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 67

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 174-179
Tensile bond strength of composite luting cements to metal alloys after various surface treatments


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
3 Department of Mechanical Education, Faculty of Technical Education, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission28-Feb-2008
Date of Decision31-Mar-2008
Date of Acceptance21-Jul-2008
Date of Web Publication23-Jun-2009
 

   Abstract 

Aims: To evaluate the effects of two different surface treatments and bonding agents on tensile bond strength between a Co-Cr and a Ni-Cr cast alloy and two resin-luting cements.
Materials and Methods: Two hundred and forty alloy samples were cast and subjected to surface treatments such as sandblasting, chemical etching, and sandblasting plus chemical etching. Panavia F and CandB cement were used as cementing mediums. The etching qualities were examined by a stereooptic microscope. Failure surfaces were examined throughout scanning electron microscopy. The data were evaluated using statistical methods, namely analysis of variance and multiple comparison test (Tukey HSD).
Results: Significant differences were found in the bonding provided by the various cements (P < 0.001) and also type of surface treatments (P < 0.001). For all groups, sandblasted surfaces showed the highest bond strength values. There was no significant difference between the Cr-Co and the Cr-Ni alloys (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Panavia F showed higher tensile strength and the sandblasted samples possessed higher tensile strength.

Keywords: Adhesion, metal casting alloys, surface treatment

How to cite this article:
Denizoglu S, Hanyaloglu CS, Aksakal B. Tensile bond strength of composite luting cements to metal alloys after various surface treatments. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:174-9

How to cite this URL:
Denizoglu S, Hanyaloglu CS, Aksakal B. Tensile bond strength of composite luting cements to metal alloys after various surface treatments. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2009 [cited 2014 Oct 24];20:174-9. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2009/20/2/174/52896
Resin-bonded castings are commonly used as periodontal splints, post orthodontic splints, fixed partial dentures, extracoronal attachments for removable prostheses, and many other dental applications; however, some problems related to the cementing of metal retainers in clinical applications have been reported elsewhere. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]

The etched enamel-composite resin bond is a reliable bond. [7] The surface treatments of enamel by washing away the inorganic matrix from dental structures using orthophosphoric acids was a starting point of development in adhesive dentistry. [8],[9] The micromorphological, physical, and physiological characteristics of enamel and dentin in combination with the establishment of acid-etch and total-etch techniques have led to major improvements in this field. [10] Self-etching adhesive systems have produced high tensile bond strengths to human coronal dentin and enamel surfaces. [11]

Failures that occur at the resin-metal interface may lead to most bonding failures in resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD). The factors contributing to this failure can be summarized as the type of adhesive, thickness of the cement, [12],[13] thickness of retainers, [14] the nature of the alloy, the treatment of the surfaces, and the stresses undergone by the prosthesis. [15] Two types of retainer designs are suggested for retention. [16] First, a macromechanical way with a perforated retainer commonly referred to as the Rochette and, secondly, the micromechanical way, which is derived from the etched cast metal retainer called a Maryland fixed partial denture. [16] The etching procedure for retaining was first described by Tanaka et al. using an acrylic resin facing. [17] An electrolytic etching technique for a retentive mechanism, which etches the inner side of the RBFPD, was described. Afterwards, many investigations were carried out for developing etch patterns by changing the etching solution, etching time, and temperature. [18],[19],[20],[21] However, through recent progresses in material science, various surface treatments with the purpose of increasing tensile bond strength of luting cements to metal surfaces have been introduced, e.g. alumina blasting, tin plating, silicoating. [22],[23],[24]

The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the tensile strength of sandblasted and/or chemically treated alloys bonded with two resin-based luting cements. In order to achieve a good bonding between cement and metal, two different chemical solutions and sandblasting were used to corrode the surface of Cr-Co and Cr-Ni alloys and compared with each other.


   Materials and Methods Top


Two different beryllium-free metal cast alloys Co-Cr (Wironit, BEGO Bremen, Germany) and Ni-Cr (Remanium CS, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) were used. Sandblasting, chemical etching, and sandblasting plus chemical etching processes were applied to create micromechanic retention cavities on the surfaces of cast metal specimens. Two different types of commercial adhesives were used: Panavia F (resin-based luting cement; Kuraray Medical Inc. Sakazu, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan) and CandB cement (resin-based luting cement; Bisco, Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USA) for cementing processes. The flow chart of current experimental processes is illustrated in [Figure 1].

Preparation of the holder and the samples

As shown in [Figure 2], a dovetail couple was designed and manufactured as sample holders to be fixed on the tensile testing equipment. The dental base casting model made from bronze alloy was machined to 13 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness. In order to cast 240 specimens, the die cavity was achieved using the silicon-based material (Panasil putty soft and contact plus; Kettenbach Dental, Eschenburg, Germany). Then, the die cavities were filled with melted inlay wax (Cerin; Spofa Dental, Praha, Czech Republic) and 240 standardized items of wax patterns were produced. Finally, the sprues were placed up on those patterns and were invested in phosphate-bonded investment (Deguvest F Degussa, Wolfgang, Germany). The dies were divided into two main groups: One group for Ni-Cr (60 couples) and one group for Co-Cr (60 couples). Two hundred forty samples (2 60 couples) were cast in total using the lost-wax process according to the manufacturer's instruction (Bego, Fornax 35 M, Bremer, Germany).

The cast disc samples were grinded automatically using an automatic grinding and polishing machine (Mecapol, P262; Briι et Angonnes Grenoble, France). In order to get a good polished disc surface, the grinder speed was determined and set to 300 rpm and abrasive silicon carbide papers were used with grid numbers of 80, 320, 400, and 800 in sequence. Each group was also subdivided into groups depending on the surface treatment of the adhesive, as shown in [Figure 1].

Sandblasting

Eighty discs (40 Co-Cr and 40 Ni-Cr) were sandblasted using a blasting machine (Bego Minipol, Bremen, Germany). Alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) beads with a mean particle size of 50 m and 60 psi air pressure were used. The distance between the nozzle and the discs was kept at 5 mm and the blasting time was 120 s. The sandblasted discs were cleaned using detergent under running tap water and then rinsed twice in distilled water and ethanol (99.6%), respectively. The specimen alloys were then finally ultrasonically cleaned in ethanol for 10 min and dried in air.

Chemical etching

Etching cast metals by means of chemical etchants is simple, faster than sandblasting, and gives uniformly treated surfaces.[18] Co-Cr dental alloys contain a high volume of Co, thus, possessing good corrosion resistance with suitable mechanical and chemical properties. However, despite difficulties in finding a suitable etchant for such alloys, it was thought that possibly a higher tensile bond strength could be obtained by a combination of surface treatments. Also, it was important to know and show the results and effects of chemical etching for such chosen alloys. Modified Murakami's solution was used for alloy etching. To that end, the chemical etching solution was found and determined by a trial and error fashion and prepared by mixing two solutions with each other. Firstly, solution (A) was prepared, consisting of 12 g of copper ammonia chloride dissolved in 100 ml distilled water. Secondly, solution (B), consisting of 60 g of ferric chloride dissolved in 200 ml hydrochloric acid (HCl) was prepared in our lab. The final etching solution was obtained by pouring the solution (B) into the solution (A) gradually. To determine the optimum temperature-time etching parameter ranging from the temperature of 22 to 70C for 1-5 min, Co-Cr alloys were tested again by the trial and error method. Finally, the best-etched microstructures were achieved at the temperature of 50C for an etching time of 2 min.

Although the same etching solution was used for Ni-Cr alloys, the best-etched microstructures were obtained at an ambient temperature and 90 sec of immersion time. The etched discs were rinsed twice in distilled water and ethanol, respectively. Then, the discs were dried in air following ultrasonic treatment in ethanol.

Tensile bond strength testing

Treated surfaces were painted with metal primers. The resin cements were applied uniformly on the forehead of the surface-treated discs in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturers. After applying the cements, a static load of 2 kg was applied for all disc pieces to the upper mounting rod for 5 min to ensure constant pressure distribution. In order to initiate the dual-cure polymerization of Panavia F, a source of halogen ray was used (Translux, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). In the beginning of the polymerization reactions, for the initial curing, a light source was applied on the prepared samples for 40 s from a distance of 2 mm and then was left at room temperature for 24 h for the secondary polymerization phase before the test. The polymerization of self-cure CandB cement was conducted at constant pressure. To provide an adequate bonding reaction, the temperature was kept constant at 35C throughout 5 min. When Panavia F is used, a coating layer named as Oxyguard II (Kuraray Medical Inc. Sakazu) was applied along open parts of resins to avoid the inhibition during polymerization. In order to provide a complete dual curing of the Panavia F bonding agent, the bonded discs were kept for 24 h in distilled water for CandB cement before tensile tests. To determine the tensile bond strength, 10 specimens from each group were randomly selected and tested using a universal tensile testing equipment (Autograph AG-IS 100 kN; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The tensile bond strengths were determined by increasing the tensile force gradually with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until the failure occurred. The data were recorded on a PC, according to the MPa unit system, using the the software (Trapezium, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) provided with the test machine.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using a statistical package program of SPSS Version 10.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL, USA). Descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation (SD) values were calculated for all variables in each group. Analysis of variance was used to determine if there were significant differences in the measurements between the groups with different adhesion values. When significant differences were present, a Tukey HSD post hoc multiple comparison test was used to determine the differences of the processes.


   Results Top


The statistical analysis showed that there was a statistically significant interaction between the variables: "adhesive-surface treatment," "alloy-surface treatment," and "adhesive-surface treatment-alloy" [Table 1]. Mean and SDs of data were calculated to the 12 groups indicated in [Figure 3]. Panavia F always showed higher mean tensile bond strength values in comparison with CandB, regardless of the factors "alloys" and "surface treatments." Regarding the effect of surface treatments on tensile bond strengths, sandblasted Co-Cr and Ni-Cr alloys bonded by Panavia F revealed the highest tensile bond strength. As for the Co-Cr alloy bonded by CandB, the sandblasted group indicated lower tensile bond strength compared with the etched and sandblasted + etched groups, although the sandblasted group showed the highest tensile bond strength in the bonding to the Ni-Cr alloy.

The surface treatment procedures such as etching, sandblasting, and sandblasting plus etching were analyzed statistically (Tukey HSD) in terms of tensile bond test results and found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001). The etching and sandblasting-etching processes were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for different bonding stresses, as presented in [Table 2].

[Figure 4] shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) profile sample of the failure surface after tensile test for the chemically etched Ni-Cr alloy bonded using Panavia F. It can be clearly observed that the failure occurred in the grey area as marked by the arrow, which is an indication of local failure due to the pulling-out effect of the etched interlayer. As seen from the SEM micrograph, the failure mechanism for the chemically etched surface was observed for both adhesive and cohesive failures. These failures appeared to be uniform on all surfaces due to the bonding agent used and they were described as adhesive failure. According to the results, the sandblasted surfaces for both alloys exhibited higher tensile bond strength.


   Discussion Top


Adhesive resins generally provide more reliable bonding on etched enamel surfaces than untreated metal surfaces. In the present study, the aim was to find and achieve the best combination of adhesive resin together with surface treatment. Therefore, sandblasting and chemical etching, which are the procedures for increasing contact surface, were conducted to provide a clinically applicable and reliable bonding strength between two metal surfaces.

Even though sandblasting and chemical etching combinations are expected to increase the bond strength, [5],[25],[26],[27],[28] in the present study, it was observed that a combination of the two treatments did not provide higher bond strength values. Therefore, overetching might have caused poor bonding. Some more detailed combinations of parameters such as etching type, temperature, and time should also be taken into consideration in future work.

In the present study, the etching solution used was determined in a trial and error fashion. However, the etched alloys revealed lower tensile bond strength in comparison with sandblasted alloys in almost all combinations of adhesive cement and alloys. Therefore, the tensile bond strength might not be decided only by the etching pattern of the alloys. The chemical etching technique might have great advantages, such as high process speed and uniformly treated surfaces. As the highest tensile bond strength was observed in the combination of "CandB"-"Co-Cr"-"sandblasting + etching," a more suitable condition of etching might improve the tensile bond strength in the other combinations. Therefore, more suitable conditions of etching should be decided for each combination of adhesive cements and alloys in the future studies.

The polymerization shrinkage of the luting agents may influence the resin cements in bonding to metal as much as differences of the metal retainers and film thickness of the cement. Beside the ultimate adhesive and cohesive bond strength values of resin composite cement, the polymerization shrinkage and residual stresses are also important factors for bond formation. It was also reported that, except for Panavia EX, the other commercial adhesives showed cohesive failures. [12] The sandblasting of substrate surfaces increases only micromechanical retention. Watanabe et al. [29] reported a cohesive failure mode in a significant number of enamel specimens bonded by Panavia EX resin.

In metal-ceramic failures, where the metal becomes exposed, a reliable resin-metal bond is desired for repair. For this, it is necessary to apply surface treatments on the metal and there are numerous reports n the literature regarding this issue. For example, Petridis et al. used Al 2 O 3 blasting with different particle sizes and the highest shear bonding was achieved at 50 microns of particle size. [30] The micromechanic bonding for all resin systems is achieved easily and quickly by sandblasting.

Neto et al. [31] also studied the chemical, electrolytic etching, and sandblasting of Ni-Cr alloys and reported that the level of microporosity on the etched alloy surfaces was too high and that non polished surfaces showed deeper etching. The depth of microporosities in electrochemical etching was measured as 3 microns for the chemical etching and 2.5 microns for the sandblasting. As a result, it was pointed out that the etching systems that were used were clinically reliable enough. Although the electrochemical and chemical etching techniques have greatly improved for resin-bonded retainers, several disadvantages have been noted, such as requirement of sensitive procedure and precise estimation of the surface area to be etched as well as controlling voltage and current. In order to provide some possible potential in using chemical etching for future work, the governing processes parameters such as the choice of etchant, etching time, temperature, and pH must be carefully determined and controlled for different alloys.

In the present study, the sandblasted surfaces gave the highest tensile bond strength whereas the remaining combinations of surface treatments surprisingly gave lower tensile bond strength values. This can be explained as weak bonding of the corrosion layer that was formed along the grain boundaries on the substrate surface as a result of the chemical etching. This layer probably caused brittle fracture originating from grain boundaries and fractured easily during tensile tests. Kohli et al. [32] also reported that sandblasted surfaces of metal alloys presented clinically quite reliable results. In fact, in many papers, it was emphasized that the abraded surfaces had more successful clinical applications. [3],[14],[21],[27] Although the chemical etching technique has great advantages, such as high process speed and ability to provide uniformly treated surfaces, it requires precise determination and control of the etching solution, temperature, and time and, thus, is a technique-sensitive procedure.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of the present study, the sandblasting procedure appeared to be more practical in clinical applications. The following conclusions can finally be emphasized:

  • A comparison of the surface treatments between sandblasted, etched, and sandblasted + etched surfaces, tensile bond strengths of sandblasted surfaces were higher and statistically significant.
  • With the comparison of resin-based luting cements, the bonding performance of Panavia F was higher than CandB.
  • Regarding Panavia F, the highest tensile bond strength was obtained by "sandblasting."
  • As for CandB, the highest tensile bond strength was obtained by "sandblasting" in the bonding to Ni-Cr alloy. However, the lowest tensile bond strength was observed in the bonding to the Co-Cr alloy by the "sandblasting" procedure.


 
   References Top

1.Dunne SM, Millar BJ. A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of resin bonded bridges and splints. Br Dent J 1993;174:405-11.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  
2.Yap AU, Stokes AN. Resin-bonded prosthesis. Quintessence Int 1995;26:521-30  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  
3.Barrack G. Etched cast restorations. Quintessence Int 1985;16:27-34.  Back to cited text no. 3  [PUBMED]  
4.Rosenstiel F, Land M, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 1 st ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1988. p. 24.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Livaditis GJ, Thompson VP. Etched castings: An improved retentive mechanism for resin-bonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:52-8.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Besimo C, Gδchter M, Jahn M, Hassel T. Clinical performance of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures and extracoronal attachments for removable prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:465-71.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Barkmeier WW, Shaffer SE, Gwinnett AJ. Effects of 15 vs 60 second enamel acid conditioning on adhesion and morphology. Oper Dent 1986;11:111-6.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Triolo PT Jr, Swift EJ Jr. Shear bond strengths of ten dentin adhesive systems. Dent Mater 1992;8:370-4.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Jain P, Stewart GP. Effect of dentin primer on shear bond strength of composite resin to moist and dry enamel. Oper Dent 2000;25:51-8.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Kaaden C, Powers JM, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Bond strength of self etching adhesives to dental hard tissues. Clin Oral Investig 2002:6;155-60.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Kiremitci A, Yalcin F, Gokalp S. Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems. Quintessence Int 2004;35:367-70.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Chana HS, Ibbetson RJ, Pearson GJ, Eder A. The influence of cement thickness on the tensile strength of two resin cements. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:340-4.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Diaz-Arnold AM, Williams VD, Aquilino SA. The effect of film thickness on the tensile bond strength of a prosthodontic adhesive. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:614-8.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Ibrahim AA, Byrne D, Hussey DL, Claffey N. Bond strengths of maxillary anterior base metal resin-bonded retainers with different thicknesses. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:281-5.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Moulin P, Degrange M, Picard B. Influence of surface treatment on adherence energy of alloys used in bonded prosthetics. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:413-21.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Creugers NH, van't Hof MA, Vrijhoef MM. A clinical comparison of the three types of resin-retained cast metal prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:297-300.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Tanaka T, Atsuta M, Uchiyama Y, Kawashima I. Pitting corrosion for retaining acrylic resin facings. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:282-91.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Livaditis GJ. A chemical etching system for creating micromechanical retention in resin bonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:181-8.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Ekstrand K, Ruyter IE. Etching patterns of Co-Cr alloys for bonded cast restorations. J Dent Res 1987:66;1479-84.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Sedberry D, Burgess J, Schwartz R. Tensile bond strengths of three chemical and one electrolytic etching system for a base metal alloy. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:606-10.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Conceiηa?o EN, de Goes MF, Consani S. Chemical etching solutions for creating micromechanical retention in resin bonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:303-9.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Ogunyinka A. The bond of two adhesive resins to alumina blasted and heat-treated gold alloy surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:403-6.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Matsumura H, Yanagida H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M, Shimoe S. Shear bond strength of resin composite veneering material to gold alloy with varying metal surface preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:315-9.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Rubo JH, Pegoraro LF, Marolato F, Rubo MH. The effect of tin-electroplating on the bond of four dental alloys to resin cement: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:27-31.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Wood M. Etched castings: An alternative approach to treatment. Dent Clin North Am 1985;29:393-402.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Burgess JO, McCartney JG. Anterior retainer design for resin-bonded acid-etched fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:433-6.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Breschi R. Evaluation of resin-bonded retainers with the scanning electron microscope. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:160-5.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Jung SW, Kim J, Kang SJL. Etching for microstructural observation of cemented submicrometer-sized carbides. J Am Ceram Soc 2001;84:899-901.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Watanabe F, Powers JM, Lorey RE. In vitro bonding of prosthodontic adhesives to dental alloys. J Dent Res 1988;67:479-83.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Petridis H, Garefis P, Hirayama H, Kafantaris NM, Koidis PT. Bonding indirect resin composites to metal: Part 2: Effect of alloy surface treatment on elemental composition of alloy and bond strength. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:77-82.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Neto HG, Candido MS, Junior AL, Garcia PP. Analysis of depth of the microporosity in a nickel-chromium system alloy - effects of electrolytic, chemical and sandblasting etching. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:556-8.  Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Kohli S, Levine WA, Grisius RJ, Fenster RK. The effect of three different surface treatments on the tensile strength of the resin bond to nickel-chromium-beryllium alloy. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:4-8.  Back to cited text no. 32    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Saip Denizoglu
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.52896

PMID: 19553718

Get Permissions



    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Clinical comparison of metal ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with a conventional and a mixed retainer design
Wolfgang Boemicke,Stefanie Kappel,Thomas Stober,Peter Rammelsberg
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014;
[Pubmed]
2 Why use resin cements?
Christensen, C.J.
Journal of the American Dental Association. 2010; 14(2): 204-206
[Pubmed]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
    Materials and Me...
    Results
    Discussion
    Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3258    
    Printed105    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded432    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal