Dental Materials

Influence of acid-etching and ceramic primers

on the repair of a glass ceramic
J.R.C. Queiroz, DDS, MSc Rodrigo O.A. Souza, DDS, MSc, PhD L. Nogueira Junior, DDS, MSc, PhD
M. Ozcan, Dr.med.dent., PhD M.A. Bottino, DDS, MSc, PhD

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of
different primers on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between
a feldspathic ceramic and two composites. Forty blocks (6.0 x 6.0
x 5.0 mm3) were prepared from Vita Mark II. After polishing, they
were randomly divided into 10 groups according to the surface
treatment: Group 1, hydrofluoric acid 10% (HF) + silane; Group
2, CoJet + silane; Group 3, HF + Metal/Zirconia Primer; Group 4,
HF + Clearfil Primer; Group 5, HF + Alloy Primer; Group 6, HF +
V-Primer; Group 7, Metal/Zirconia Primer; Group 8, Clearfil Primer;
Group 9, Alloy Primer; Group 10, V-Primer. After each surface
treatment, an adhesive was applied and one of two composite res-
ins was incrementally built up. The sticks obtained from each block
(bonded area: 1.0 mm2 ± 0.2 mm) were stored in distilled water
at 37°C for 30 days and submitted to thermocycling (7,000 cycles;
5°C/55°C ± 1°C). The µTBS test was carried out using a universal
testing machine (1.0 mm/min). Data were analyzed using ANOVA
and a Tukey test ( = 0.05).
The surface treatments significantly affected the results (P < 0.05);
no difference was observed between the composites (P > 0.05).
The bond strength means (MPa) were as follows: Group 1a = 29.6;
Group 1b = 33.7; Group 2a = 28.9; Group 2b = 27.1; Group 3a
= 13.8; Group 3b = 14.9; Group 4a = 18.6; Group 4b = 19.4;
Group 5a = 15.3; Group 5b = 16.5; Group 6a = 11; Group 6b =
18; Groups 7a to 10b = 0. While the use of primers alone was not
sufficient for adequate bond strengths to feldspathic ceramic, HF
etching followed by any silane delivered higher bond strength.
Received: January 5, 2011
Accepted: April 12, 2011

T
he clinical interest in metal-
free restorations, especially
those made using CAD/CAM
systems, has grown in recent years.
These systems allow the design
and milling of restorations from
a ceramic block, using advanced
machines and software. The advan-
tages of these processes, which
include fewer defects in the material
(such as pores) when compared to
conventional techniques; standard-
ization of quality, fit, and precision,
among others; and an increase in
the efficiency of prostheses, provide
new concepts of treatment.1
Among the different kinds of
ceramic blocks available on the
market, silica-based ceramics are
the most frequently used to make
inlays, onlays, overlays, veneers,
and anterior crowns. Several studies
have reported high clinical success
rates for these restorations, with a
range exceeding 90%.2-7 However,
the literature has reported several
kinds of failures with these types of
restorations, such as dental fracture,
decay, and endodontic failure, with
most of the failures occurring due to
fracture of the ceramic.3-6,8,9
The main advantages for repair-
ing these fractured restorations are
saving time, reducing costs, and
improving working conditions
for the clinician and comfort for
patients. Several protocols for
repairing fractured ceramic surfaces
have been suggested, with the main
goal of replacing the fragment of
ceramic that was lost using photo-
cured composites.10-18 There are
several methods of preparing a
ceramic surface to improve the bond
strength between a composite resin
and the ceramic, including etching,
conditioning (hydrofluoric acid),
silanization, and silica coating.19,20
However, these treatments must be
used with caution because there is a
risk of burning the adjacent tissue or
the patient aspirating silica particles.
For these reasons, it is important
to find the best solution that will
promote good ceramic/resin bonding
to simplify the repair procedures and
minimize the risks to the patient.
Moreover, primers need to be easy
to apply and cost-effective, and not
require the use of a proprietary tool.
The objective of the present study
was to evaluate the influence of
several primers on the microtensile
bond strength (µTBS) between a
silica-based ceramic and two com-
posite resins, with and without 10%
hydrofluoric (HF) acid-etching. The
hypotheses were that bond strength
is affected by the primers and acid-
etching, and the type of resin does
not influence the results.
Materials and methods
The brand names, material types,
main compositions, manufacturers,

www.agd.org General Dentistry March/April 2012 e79

Dental Materials Influence of acid-etching and ceramic primers on the repair of a glass ceramic

Table 1. Brand name, material type, composition, and manufacturer of materials used in the present study.

Brand name Material type Main composition Manufacturer Batch No.

Alloy Primer Acetone, 6-(4-vinylbenzyl-N-propyl)amino-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- Kuraray America, Inc. 00243-A
Primer dithione, 10-ethacryloyloxydecyldihydrogenphosphate
Ceramic 10% HF acid Hydrofluoric acid, water, thickening agent, and stain Dentsply Industria 900885
Etching Gel e Comercio Ltda.
Clearfil Ceramic Primer Ethanol, 3-trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate, Kuraray America, Inc. 0004-A
Primer 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate
Filtek Nanofiller resin Silane treated ceramic, bisphenol-A-polyethylene glycol 3M ESPE 8NH
Supreme diether dimethacrylate (BIS-GMA), diurethane dimethacrylate,
silane-treated silica, bisphenol-A diglycidyl ether methacrylate,
triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA)
Metal/Zirconia Primer Tert. butyl alcohol, methyl isobutyl ketone, phosphonic acid Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. N/A
Primer acrylate, benzoylperoxide
Monobond-S Silane agent Ethanol, water, silane, acetic acid Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. H24764
Scotchbond Dental adhesive Bisphenol-A-glycidylmethacrylate 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate 3M ESPE 7PW
Multipurpose
V-Primer Primer Acetone, 6-(4-vinylbenzyl-N-propyl)amino-1,3,5-triazine-2, Sun Medical MF-1
4-dithiol,-Dithione toutomer (VTD)
Vitabloc Fine-particle Aluminium oxide, silicon oxide, sodium oxide, potassium oxide Vident 16940
Mark II feldspathic ceramic
blocks
W3D Master Microhybrid resin Silica, barium silicate, aluminium silicate, BIS-GMA, TEGDM Wilcos 194/07

and batch numbers of the products
used in the present study are listed
in Table 1. Forty blocks (6.0 x
6.0 x 5.0 mm3) of feldspathic
ceramic were obtained by section-
ing Vita Mark II blocks (Vident)
in a sectioning machine (LabCut
1010, Extec) using a diamond disc
(Microdont) at low speed under
water cooling. The cementation
surface of each ceramic block was
leveled and polished in a machine
using silicon carbide papers (3M
ESPE) in sequence (600, 800, 1200,
and 2000 grit) under water cooling.
Impressions were made from each
ceramic block using addition sili-
cone putty (Elite HD, Zhermack
Inc.). Prior to surface conditioning,
all blocks were cleaned ultrasoni-
cally (Vitasonic, Vident) for five
minutes using distilled water and
then air-dried. Each block was
pushed into the silicone putty until
3.0 mm remained between the
upper portion of the mold and the
surface of the block. Next, compos-
ite resin was applied.
Four primers, two surface condi-
tions (no conditioning or 10% HF
acid-etching) and two composite
resins were studied. The blocks were
randomly divided according to the
10 strategies for cementation and the
type of composite resin (Table 2).
The ceramic surfaces of the
specimens in Groups 1–6 were
etched with 10% HF acid gel
(Dentsply Industria e Comercio
Ltda.) for 60 seconds, rinsed with
air-water spray for 60 seconds, and
air-dried. The ceramics were ultra-
sonically cleaned in distilled water
for five minutes. Either a silane
coupling agent or the respective
primer was applied using a clean
brush in one layer and allowed to
sit for five minutes.
The resin increments were pho-
toactivated (XL 3000, 3M ESPE)
with a light output of 500 mW/cm2
for 40 seconds on the upper side of
the specimen using the incremental
technique (1.5 mm of thickness
from each increment). The intensity
of the light was verified to be no
lower than 500 mW/cm2 using a
radiometer (Demetron LC, Kerr
Corporation) before starting photo-
polymerization of each group.
Specimen preparation for
the µTBS test
The ceramic-resin blocks were
sectioned in a sectioning machine
(LabCut 1010) using a diamond
disc (Microdont, No. 34570) at
low speed and under water cooling.
Initially, the cemented blocks were

e80 March/April 2012 General Dentistry www.agd.org

fixed on a metallic base that was
attached to the sectioning machine
using a cyanoacrylate adhesive gel
(Super Bonder Gel, Loctite Ltd.).
The blocks were positioned as per-
pendicularly as possible in relation
to the diamond disc of the machine.
The first and last sections, measur-
ing approximately 1.0 mm, were
discarded due to the possibility of
too much or too little cement at the
interface that might alter the results.
Four sections, each measuring 1.0 ±
0.1 mm in thickness, were prepared.
Each section was rotated 90 degrees
and fixed again to the metallic base.
Again, the first and last sections
(1.0 ± 0.1 mm) were discarded
for the reasons mentioned above.
Subsequently, four other sections
were prepared, also measuring 1.0
± 0.1 mm in thickness. Only the
central specimens were used for the
experiments (25). Approximately
16 specimens were obtained from
each block. The beam specimens
were 10 mm in length and had non-
machined (nontrimmed) bonding
areas, with a bonded area measuring
approximately 1.0 ± 0.1 mm2.
The specimens obtained from
each ceramic block were submitted
to thermocycling (7,000 cycles;
5–55° C; dwelling time: 30 seconds,
transfer time: 2 seconds) (Nova
Etica) and then submitted to test-
ing. In this manner, 20 groups were
obtained, considering surface coat-
ing, etching, and composite resin.
µTBS testing
Each specimen was fixed to the
rods of a device adapted for this test
using Super Bonder Gel, keeping
the adhesive zone unattached to the
device rods. The specimens were
positioned parallel to the long axis
of the device to reduce bending
stresses. The device was fixed in a
DL-1000 universal testing machine
(EMIC) as parallel as possible to the
Table 2. Experimental groups according to surface treatment and type of
composite resin.
Group Surface treatment Resin
1a CoJet + silane + adhesive Microhybrid resin
1b CoJet + silane + adhesive Nanofiller resin
2a Etched acid + silane + adhesive Microhybrid resin
2b Etched acid + silane + adhesive Nanofiller resin
3a Etched acid + Metal/Zirconia Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
3b Etched acid + Metal/Zirconia Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
4a Etched acid + Clearfil Ceramic Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
4b Etched acid + Clearfil Ceramic Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
5a Etched acid + Alloy Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
5b Etched acid + Alloy Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
6a Etched acid + V-Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
6b Etched acid + V-Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
7a Metal/Zirconia Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
7b Metal/Zirconia Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
8a Clearfil Ceramic Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
8b Clearfil Ceramic Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
9a Alloy Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
9b Alloy Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
10a V-Primer + adhesive Microhybrid resin
10b V-Primer + adhesive Nanofiller resin
application of the tensile load. Test- to characterize the ceramic surfaces
ing was performed at a crosshead and the failure modes.
speed of 1 mm/minute. The failure types were classified as
Bond strength was calculated follows: adhesive fracture along the
according to the formula R=F/A, interfacial region between the luting
where R is strength (MPa), F is the agent and ceramic; cohesive fracture
load required for fracture of the spec- along the luting agent; cohesive frac-
imen (N), and A is the interface area ture along the ceramic; and mixed
of the specimen (mm2), measured fracture (adhesive failure between
with a digital caliper before testing. the resin and ceramic together with a
cohesive fracture of the resin).
Fracture analysis
The specimens were analyzed under Statistical analysis
a Stemi 2000-C stereomicroscope Statistical analysis for the micro-
(Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) at a mag- tensile bond strength test was
nification of 30X, and the images performed using two-way ANOVA
were digitally recorded using a and multiple comparisons were
Cybershot Model DSC S85 camera made by a Tukey adjustment test,
(Sony) connected to the microscope considering the surface treatment
www.agd.org General Dentistry March/April 2012 e81
Dental Materials Influence of acid-etching and ceramic primers on the repair of a glass ceramic
Table 3. Results of two-way ANOVA for µTBS data.
Source DF SS
Resin 1 384.8
Treatment 5 16414.7
Resin x treatment 5 700.7
Error 392 23310.0
Total 403
and composite resin. P values less
than 0.05 were considered to be
statistically significant for all tests.
Results
It was not possible to produce
microsticks from the specimens that
were not conditioned with acid-
etching. For this reason, the factor
of etching was not considered in the
statistical analysis. Therefore, only
the groups with ceramic surface
conditioning (acid-etching or silica
coating) before silane or primer
application were considered, with
variations in the composite resin.
Two-way ANOVA (Table 3)
revealed that the µTBS values were
significantly affected by surface
treatment (P = 0.0006). However,
composite resin (P = 0.0113) was
not a significant factor. The resins
presented similar µTBS values with
the same surface treatments (Group
2a = 33.7 ± 10.5 MPa; Group 2b
= 29.6 ± 10.6 MPa) and presented
similar overall results (W3D Master
= 20.1 ± 10.3 MPa; Filtek Supreme
= 20.7 ± 9.7 MPa). The interaction
between the composite resin and sur-
face treatment factors was statistically
significant (P = 0.0398) (ANOVA).
The results of the Tukey multiple
comparison test demonstrated that,
when the main factor of surface treat-
ment was analyzed, 10% HF acid-
etching plus silanization and silica
coating (CoJet) procedures presented
e82 March/April 2012 General Dentistry
Table 4. Mean µTBS values
(±SD) (MPa) for ceramic surface
MS F P treatments of microhybrid and
nanofiller resins.
384.84 6.47 0.0113
3282.94 52.21 0.0006*
Group Mean SD
140.14 2.36 0.0398*
1a 28.97a 9.3
59.46
1b 27.14a 9.9
2a 29.60a 10.6
2b 33.77a 10.6
3a 13.84cd 5.5
similar µTBS values: Group 1a = 3b 14.94 bcd
6.2
28.97 ± 9.32 MPa, Group 1b = 4a 18.67bc 6.1
27.14 ± 9.89 MPa; Group 2a =
4b 19.45 b
7.9
29.60 ± 10.62 MPa; and Group 2b =
33.77 ± 10.57 MPa. Moreover, these 5a 15.31bcd 5.2
groups presented significantly higher 5b 16.51bcd 4.7
results than the other groups (ranging 6a 11.03d 3.7
from 11.03–19.4 MPa) (Table 4). 6b 18.01 bc
7.8
Fracture analysis of the specimens *The same superscript letters indicate no
revealed different patterns of fracture: significant differences (Tukey test, = 0.05).
adhesive failure along the interfacial
region between the luting agent and
the feldspathic ceramic; cohesive
fracture in the ceramic; cohesive frac- The results of the present study
ture in the luting agent; and mixed showed that higher bond strength
failure (cohesive fracture of the values were found when a silica-
luting agent combined with adhesive based ceramic surface is conditioned
failure). The pattern of failure was using 10% HF or is coated with
predominantly mixed (Table 5). silica. This result can be explained
by the changes of the superficial
Discussion glassy matrix of the ceramic. A
Several in vitro studies evaluating roughened surface and increased
the ceramic/resin bond strength surface area enhance the mechani-
have been described. However, cal and chemical bonding because
some studies have indicated that that type of surface favors the infil-
the µTBS test is a more appropriate tration and retention of adhesive
method for evaluating the bond materials and makes the ceramic
strength of adhesive interfaces, as surface more retentive.17-20
that test provides more uniform Another important aspect for
interfacial stress distribution than resin bonding to silica-based ceram-
the shear test.21-24 To minimize the ics is the application of an agent
influence of interfacial defects and that provides a stable adhesion
eliminate nonuniform stress dis- between organic and inorganic
tribution at the adhesive interface, materials. The main agent used for
a tensile bond test with a reduced this purpose is a silane coupling
testing area has been evaluated. For agent.17-20 Silane is a bifunctional
these reasons, the µTBS test was molecule that promotes chemical
performed in the current study. bonding with both organic and
www.agd.org
 Table 5. Number and percentage of pretest failures (PTF) during sectioning, microstick cutting, and thermocycling.

Group No. and % of PTFs No. and % of PTFs No. and % of spontaneous Total No. and % of
( n = 40) during sectioning during microstick cutting PTFs during thermocycling PTFs prior to µTBS
1a 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
1b 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
2a 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
2b 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
3a 0 (0) 2 (5) 4 (10) 6 (15)
3b 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (12.5) 5 (12.5)
4a 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5)
4b 0 (0) 2 (5) 2 (5) 4 (10)
5a 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (7.5) 3 (7.5)
5b 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (7.5) 3 (7.5)
6a 0 (0) 2 (5) 5 (12.5) 7 (17.5)
6b 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (15) 6 (15)
7a 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
7b 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
8a 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
8b 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
9a 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
9b 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
10a 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)
10b 40 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 40 (100)

inorganic surfaces. Silane reacts
with the siliceous oxides present
in feldspathic ceramics, creating a
favorable bonding surface.18-20 Some
studies have indicated that silane
could be used successfully without
ceramic conditioning when heat is
used for drying.25-28 However, the
application of primers without pre-
vious ceramic conditioning was not
confirmed by the current study.
Metal/Zirconia Primer contains a
phosphoric acid compound (adhe-
sive phosphate monomer, or APM)
that establishes a chemical bond to
metal oxides. The recommendation
of the manufacturer is for use on
zirconia ceramics. Reactions could
be formed between hydroxyl groups
in the APM and hydroxyl groups on
the zirconia ceramic surface.29
The functional monomer vinyl-
benzyl triazine dithione (VTD) is
found in V-Primer and Alloy Primer,
both of which are used on metal. The
monomer’s mercapto group affinity
with VTD is mostly for precious
metal alloys. VTD is chemisorbed
via the sulfur atom on gold, silver,
copper, and palladium (the reactivity
is attributed to the poor match in the
size of the carbon and sulfur). The
adsorbed monomer is copolymer-
ized through C=C double bonds
with the other monomers to form
a polymer network.30,31 The sub-
stantial gold-sulfur binding energy
is approximately 160 kilojoules
per mole (kJ/mol), but this energy
appears to be lower with base metals,
which would explain a lower bond
after the effect of aging.31
On the other hand, both Alloy
Primer and Clearfil Ceramic
Primer have a different functional
monomer, methacryloyloxydecyl
dihydrogen phosphate (MDP).
The phosphate ester group of the
MDP reacts both chemically and
directly to metal oxides, favoring the
ceramic/resin bond.32
Hummel & Kern reported that
the combination of the MDP-con-
taining Alloy Primer and Variolink
II, or the combination of silanization
and Variolink II, did not exhibit a
statistically significant decrease in

www.agd.org General Dentistry March/April 2012 e83

Dental Materials Influence of acid-etching and ceramic primers on the repair of a glass ceramic
bond strength to sandblasted Procera
ceramic when comparing the initial
values after three days with those
after 150 days of storage and ther-
mocycling.33 Tanaka et al reported
that the application of MDP and a
silane coupling agent on silica-coated
yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystal
(Y-TZP) ceramics through a tribo-
chemical modification is a promising
method for ceramic restorations
in clinical settings.32 Blatz et al
reported that the combination of
Panavia 21 (an MDP-based cement)
and a silane coupling agent provided
the highest bond strengths after
artificial aging.34 MDP incorporates
both hydrophilic and hydrophobic
functional groups; the hydrophilic
functional group of MDP mono-
mer is expected to be unstable in
thermocycled conditions when
compared to the siloxane network
created by silane coupling agents.35
The primers used in the current
study did not show a favorable
performance for feldspathic ceramic
repair, even after conditioning, most
likely because the siloxane bond was
more resistant to water degradation
than the primer’s mechanism of
bonding, which was a statistically
significant result between the two
types of ceramic. MDP-based
primers achieved better results than
VTD-based primers when etching
had been done previously.
Analysis of the fractured surfaces
under optical microscopy and SEM
showed that the failures were mainly
mixed in all groups. These results
showed that the use of acid-etching
or surface sandblasting on the
ceramic surface before the applica-
tion of silane or primer is efficient
and improves bond strength.
The bonding performance of dif-
ferent resin materials was evaluated
by means of the µTBS test to rec-
ognize the behavior when used for
repairs. The induced polymerization
e84 March/April 2012 General Dentistry
stress is influenced by several factors:
The chemical composition of the
material and the content, shape,
dimension, and pretreatment of the
filler particles are important in this
process.36 However, the results of the
current study showed an insignifi-
cant correlation between different
particle size and µTBS in the repair
of ceramics with composite resins.
Some studies have reported that
ceramic fracture is a common
reason for failure of CAD/CAM
ceramic restorations.2-7 However,
prospective clinical studies using
ceramic repair were not found in
the literature. Therefore, further
long-term studies using fatigue tests
and controlled randomized clinical
trials are required to analyze the
influence of the resin, primer, or
silane and ceramic surface treat-
ment protocols on the longevity of
this procedure. However, based on
the µTBS and microscopic failure
findings in the current study, resins
with nano- or micro-sized particles
should be used in conjunction with
etching or silica coating and silani-
zation treatments on feldspathic
ceramics. Moreover, clinical trial
studies are necessary to establish
the ideal protocol for promoting
effective bond strength and longev-
ity in the repair of clinical ceramics.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the present
study, it can be concluded that
the bond strengths for the primer
solutions used were inferior to
those of conventional treatments
and seem to be an unsatisfactory
method for improving the bond
strength between ceramic and
composite resin.
Author information
Dr. Queiroz is a postgraduate
student in prosthodontics, Sao Jose
dos Campos Dental School, Sao
www.agd.org
Paulo State University (UNESP),
Sao Jose dos Campos, Sao Paulo,
Brazil, where Dr. Nogueira is a
professor, Department of Dental
Materials and Prosthodontics, and
Dr. Bottino is a professor and chair,
Department of Dental Materials
and Prosthodontics. Dr. Souza is
an adjunct professor, Department
of Restorative Dentistry, Federal
University of Paraiba (UFPB), Joao
Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil. Dr. Ozcan
is with the Dental Materials Unit,
Center for Dental and Oral Medi-
cine, Clinic for Fixed and Remov-
able Prosthodontics and Dental
Materials Science, University of
Zurich, Switzerland.
References
1. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentist-
ry: An overview of recent developments for
CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J
2008;204(9):505-511.
2. Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K.
The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generat-
ed composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;
136(12):1714-1723.
3. Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ce-
ramic restorations: A 10-year prospective clinical
study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J
Prosthodont 2002;15(2):122-128.
4. Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. Porce-
lain laminate veneers: 6- to 12-year clinical
evaluation: A retrospective study. Int J Periodon-
tics Restorative Dent 2005;25(1):9-17.
5. Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 10-year
prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufac-
tured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a
chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite.
Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(2):241-246.
6. Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 5-year
clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays (Cerec) ce-
mented with a dual-cured or chemically cured
resin composite luting agent. Acta Odontol
Scand 1998;56(5):263-267.
7. Reich SM, Wichmann M, Rinne H, Shortall A.
Clinical performance of large, all-ceramic CAD/
CAM-generated restorations after three years: A
pilot study. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(5): 605-
612.
8. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Survival rate of mono-
ceramic and ceramic-core CAD/CAM-generated
anterior crowns over 2-5 years. Eur J Oral Sci
2004;112(2):197-204.
9. Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. Ceramics in
dentistry: Historical roots and current perspec-
tives. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75(1):18-32.
10. Stangel I, Nathanson D, Hsu CS. Shear strength
of the composite bond to etched porcelain. J
Dent Res 1987;66(9):1460-1465.
11. Lacy AM, LaLuz J, Watanabe LG, Dellinges M.
Effect of porcelain surface treatment on the
bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60(3):
288-291.
12. Bailey JH. Porcelain-to-composite bond
strengths using four organosilane materials. J
Prosthet Dent 1989;61(2):174-177.
13. Bertolotti RL, Lacy AM, Watanabe LG. Adhesive
monomers for porcelain repair. Int J Prosthodont
1989;2(5):483-489.
14. Llobell A, Nicholls JI, Kois JC, Daly CH. Fatigue
life of porcelain repair systems. Int J Prostho-
dont 1992;5(3):205-213.
15. Tylka DF, Stewart GP. Comparison of acidulated
phosphate fluoride gel and hydrofluoric acid
etchants for porcelain-composite repair. J Pros-
thet Dent 1994;72(2):121-127.
16. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile
bond strength of resin composite bonded to
ceramic. J Dent Res 1995;74(9):1591-1596.
17. Ozcan M. The use of chairside silica coating for
different dental applications: A clinical report. J
Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):469-472.
18. Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral
repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-
to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehab 2003;30(2):
194-203.
19. Mantilinna JP, Vallittu PK. Bonding of resin
composites to etchable ceramic surfaces—
An insight review of the chemical aspects on
surface conditioning. J Oral Rehab 2007;34(8):
622-630.
20. Della Bona A. Characterizing ceramics and the
interfacial adhesion to resin: II. The relationship
of surface treatment, bond strength, interfacial
toughness and fractography. J Appl Oral Sci
2005;13(2):101-109.
21. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky Jr JJ.
Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to
ceramic. Dent Mater 2003;19(8):693-699.
22. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky Jr JJ. Ap-
parent interfacial fracture toughness of resin/
ceramic systems. J Dent Res 2006;85(11):1037-
1041.
23. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs tensile
bond strength of resin composite bonded to
ceramic. J Dent Res 1995;74(9):1591-1596.
24. Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G.
A critique of bond strength measurements. J
Dent 1989;17(2):61-67.
25. Hooshmand T, van Noort R, Keshvad A. Bond du-
rability of the resin-bonded and silane treated
ceramic surface. Dent Mater 2002;18(2):179-
188.
26. Monticelli F, Toledano M, Osorio R, Ferrari M.
Effect of temperature on the silane coupling
agents when bonding core resin to quartz fiber
post. Dent Mater 2006;22(11):1024-1028.
27. Papacchini F, Monticelli F, Hasa I, Radovic I, Fa-
bianelli A, Polimeni A, Ferrari M. Effect of air-
drying temperature on the effectiveness of
silane primers and coupling blends in the repair
of a microhybrid resin composite. J Adhes Dent
2007;9(4):391-397.
28. Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Papacchini F, Goracci
C, Cantoro A, Ferrari M, van Noort R. The effect
of different surface treatments on bond strength
between leucite reinforced feldspathic ceramic
and composite resin. J Dent 2010;38(1):39-43.
29. Nothdurft FP, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR. Effect of
surface treatment on the initial bond strength of
different luting cements to zirconium oxide ce-
ramic. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13(2):229-235.
30. Park JE, Park SG, Koukitu A, Hatozaki O, Oyama
N. Chemical reaction of Pd nanoparticles with
organosulfur compound and N, N’-diphenyl-
p-phenylenediamine as a model compound of
polyaniline. J New Mater Electroch Sys 2003;6:
137-141.
31. Taira Y, Kamada K, Atsuta M. Effects of primers
containing thiouracil and phosphate monomers
on bonding of resin to Ag-Pd-Au Alloy. Dent
Mater J 2008;27(1):69-74.
32. Tanaka R, Fujishima A, Shibata Y, Manabe A,
Miyazaki T. Cooperation of phosphate monomer
and silica modification on zirconia. J Dent Res
2008;87(7):666-670.
33. Hummel M, Kern M. Durability of the resin bond
strength to the alumina ceramic Procera. Dent
Mater 2004;20(5):498-508.
34. Blatz M, Sadan A, Arch GH Jr, Lang BR. In vitro
evaluation of long-term bonding of Procera All-
Ceram alumina restorations with a modified
resin luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(4):
381-387.
35. Yoshida K, Tsuo Y, Atsuta M. Bonding of dual-
cured resin cement to zirconia ceramic using
phosphate acid ester monomer and zirconate
coupler. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
2006;77(1):28-33.
www.agd.org General Dentistry
36. Ilie N, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Evaluation of
micro-tensile bond strengths of composite ma-
terials in comparison to their polymerization
shrinkage. Dent Mater 2006;22(7):593-601.
Manufacturers
Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA
800.442.4020, www.zeiss.com
Dentsply Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Petropolis, RJ, Brazil
55.24.2233.1800, www.dentsply.com.br
EMIC, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil
55.41.3035.9400, www.universaltestingmachines.net
Extec, Enfield, CT
800.543.9832, www.extec.com
Ivoclar Vivadent Inc., Amherst, NY
800.533.6825, www.ivoclarvivadent.us.com
Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA
877.685.1484, www.kerrdental.com
Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY
800.879.1676, www.kuraraydental.com
Loctite Ltd., Chesterfield, MO
800.624.7767, www.loctiteproducts.com
Microdont, Sao Paulo, Brazil
55.11.5524.8484, www.microdont.com.br
Nova Etica, Vargem Grande Paulista, SP, Brazil
55.11.4158.2525, www.ethik.com.br
Sony, Itasca, IL
877.865.7669, www.sony.com
Sun Medical, Moriyama City, Japan
81.77.582.9981, www.sunmedical.co.jp
Vident, Brea, CA
800.828.3839, www.vident.com
Wilcos, Petropolis, RJ, Brazil
55.24.3064.1000, www.wilcos.com.br
Zhermack Inc., River Edge, NJ
877.819.6206, en.zhermack.com
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN
888.364.3577, solutions.3m.com
Published with permission by the Academy of
General Dentistry. © Copyright 2012 by the
Academy of General Dentistry. All rights reserved.
March/April 2012 e85