Resin/Resin Bonding: A New Adhesive

Technology
Ralf Jandaa/Jean-François Rouletb/Michael Wulfc/Hans-Jürgen Tillerd

Purpose: Evaluation of a new surface treatment method to obtain a good bond strength between a luting
composite and (1) a light-cured, (2) a heat-cured and (3) a thermoplastic resin.
Materials and Methods: Specimens were prepared and tests conducted according to ISO 10477,
Amend. 1. The surfaces of Targis (light cured), SR Isosit (heat cured), and Dental D (thermoplastic) were
ground under water cooling with 400-grit grinding paper, polished with 800-grit paper and air dried. Each
resin material was divided into 3 groups of 10 specimens each. Group 1 was flame treated with a Py-
rosilPen for 5 s/2 cm2, group 2 for 10 s/2 cm2, and group 3 for 20 s/2 cm2. Subsequently, a methacryl
silane was applied, followed by a luting composite. Prior to measuring shear bond strength, the speci-
mens were thermocycled 5000 times in a water bath between 5°C and 55°C. SEM, FTIR investigations,
and fracture analysis were also done. Etched and silanized Empress II – the gold standard – was used
as a control.
Results: The following shear bond strengths were found: treatment time 5 s/2 cm2, Targis 25 (±12)
MPa, SR Isosit 17 (±11) MPa; treatment time 10 s/2 cm2, Targis 23 (±12) MPa, SR Isosit 26 (±8) MPa;
treatment time 20 s/2 cm2, Targis 29 (±5) MPa, SR Isosit 26 (±9) MPa. All Dental D specimens failed
completely so that shear bond strength could not be measured. The control achieved 27 (±6) MPa. No
significant differences were found between the materials or the flaming times. On all flamed surfaces,
Si was detected by FTIR. SEM showed that no heat destruction occurred at a flaming time of 5 s/2 cm2,
a slight change at 10 s/2 cm2, and a significant change at 20 s/2 cm2.
Conclusion: This new bonding technology is an effective method for surface-treating polymerized com-
posite resin materials to obtain good bonding to luting composites. The method fails on thermoplastic
resins.

J Adhes Dent 2002; 4: 299–308. Submitted for publication: 27.08.01; accepted for publication: 06.09.02.

t is very problematic to bond resins to other,

a Associate Professor, Dept. of Operative and Preventive Dentistry
and Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine (Charité), Humboldt Universi-
ty, Berlin, Germany.
b Professor, Dept. of Operative and Preventive Dentistry and Endo-
dontics, Faculty of Medicine (Charité), Humboldt University, Berlin,
Germany.
c Graduate Student, Dept. of Operative and Preventive Dentistry and
Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine (Charité), Humboldt University,
Berlin, Germany.
d President of Innovent eV, Technology Development, Jena, Germany.
Reprint requests: PD Dr. R. Janda, Dept. of Operative and Preventive
Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine (Charité), Humboldt
University, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany. Fax:
+49-30-450-56-29-61. e-mail: rjanda1108@aol.com
I already cured and highly crosslinked resins. In
practice, this problem always arises when indi-
rectly luting manufactured composite inlays, on-
lays, crowns, or bridges to hard dental tis-
sues.11-14,24,29,33,36,40,42,43,50 Although in vitro in-
vestigations show that light-cured composite inlays
bond better to luting composites than do
heat-cured composites, the bond is still not opti-
mal.2 Furthermore, it must be noted that other
studies have proven that an optimized curing pro-
cess (heat curing, laboratory light curing, or light
curing followed by heat treatment) results in a high-
er conversion rate and thus in superior composite
properties.26,27 However, the higher conversion

Vol 4, No 4, 2002 299

Janda et al
Fig 1 PyrosilPen.
rate might negatively affect the bond strength to
the luting composite. Recently, new fiber-rein-
forced composite materials for manufacturing
crowns and bridges have been introduced and in-
vestigated. It is recommended that these restora-
tions also be luted with an appropriate luting com-
posite.7,21,28,30,41,49
To obtain an acceptable bond strength between
the luting composite and the cured composite res-
toration, various surface pretreatment methods
have been tested in vitro, such as sandblasting,
hydrofluoric acid etching, phosphoric acid etching,
roughening with burs, silicating and silanizing, or
combinations thereof.1,6,16,29,33,36,43,44,50 Howev-
er, the reported results are not uniform and some-
times even contradictory. Stokes et al43 reported
shear bond strength values of 19 MPa, Haller et
al12 10 to 50 MPa, and Ludwig33 21 to 24 MPa.
Krämer et al,29 who used a different test method,
obtained bond strength values of approximately
48 MPa. The reported in vitro tests are complicat-
ed. Moreover, it is also very difficult to compare
the results of the in vitro tests mentioned, since
each one of the authors used a different test pro-
cedure.
In addition, clinical investigations have been
conducted comparing composite inlays that had
undergone different pretreatments prior to inser-
tion with adhesively (etched and silanized) insert-
ed ceramic inlays.3,16,34,47 These tests proved
that marginal integrity of composite inlays was not
as good as the adhesively inserted ceramic inlays.
Based on these results, it seems to be appropriate
to look for a more reliable, simpler technique to
bond already cured composite inlays to a luting
composite.
300
Fig 2 Layers created by the Silicoater technique.
The present study investigates a new surface
treatment method called the PyrosilPen technique
(SurA Instruments, Jena, Germany). The PyrosilPen
(Fig 1) is a very special, small hand-held lighter con-
taining a mixture of butane gas and a silane (tetra-
ethoxy silane). The flame is lit by a piezo element.
The substrate surfaces are flame treated for only a
few seconds. Then SurALink (SurA Instruments), a
proprietary solution of 3-methacryloyl oxypropyl tri-
methoxy silane in an organic solvent, is brushed on
the surface. Finally, the composite material is ap-
plied.
The PyrosilPen technique is based on the Sili-
coater technique (Heraeus-Kulzer, Hanau, Germa-
ny) developed in 1984.17,18,20,22,32,35,37-39,45 For
the first time, this system allowed a very strong and
long-lasting adhesive bond to be created between
resins and precious as well as nonprecious met-
als.10,23-25,48 More recently, this technique has
also been used to bond luting composites to zirco-
nia and alumina ceramics.9,13 The Silicoater is a
lab device for flame-treating metal or ceramic. The
fuel gas is butane, which is burned with atmospher-
ic oxygen. Prior to lighting the gas, it is guided over
a container filled with tetraethoxy silane. After light-
ing, this silane decomposes in the flame, and
SiOx-C fragments are created. Objects put in the
flame are covered by a layer of these SiOx-C frag-
ments that bond adhesively (van der Waals forces)
onto the substrate surfaces.38,45 This extremely
thin layer (ca 0.1 µm)38,45 has glasslike properties
and can be silanized with 3-methacryloyl oxypropyl
trimethoxy silane, which polymerizes with acrylic or
methacrylic groups. Figure 2 schematically shows
the single layers created by the Silicoater tech-
nique. However, the Silicoater technique was rather
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

complicated, expensive, susceptible to difficulties,
and could not be applied chairside.
The PyrosilPen is based on the same technology
but is much easier to use, even chairside, less sus-
ceptible to difficulties, and much more cost effec-
tive. Furthermore, this technique is expected to be
applicable for all types of composite materials.
Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to eval-
uate whether this new bonding technique leads to
optimal adhesion between various polymerized
composite materials and a luting composite in
comparison to the clinically well-proven etched and
silanized ceramic/luting-composite bond. The null
hypothesis was that the PyrosilPen does not per-
form as well as the etched and silanized ceram-
ic/luting-composite method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following composites were used:
• Targis, light-curing hybrid composite (Ivoclar/Vi-
vadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)
• SR Isosit, heat-curing microfilled composite (Ivo-
clar/Vivadent)
• Dental D, polyacetale thermoplastic resin
(Shera, Lemförde, Germany)
Variolink II (Ivoclar/Vivadent) was used as the
luting composite.
In accordance with ISO 10477 Amendment 1,
rectangular specimens with the dimensions 20
(±1) x 10 (±1) x 2 (±0.5) mm were provided by the
respective manufacturing company. The resin spec-
imens were ground under water cooling with
400-grit grinding paper and afterwards polished
with 800-grit paper and air dried. Each group was
divided into three subgroups of ten specimens
each: subgroup 1 was flamed for 5 s/2 cm2, sub-
group 2 for 10 s/2 cm2, and subgroup 3 for 20 s/2
cm2. To avoid thermal destruction due to flame
treatment times of more than 5 s/2cm2, the resin
specimens were flamed stepwise for 2 s until the
final treatment time was obtained. After flame
treatment, the specimens were cooled down to
room temperature for 3 min and the silane solution
SurALink was brushed on. The organic solvent
evaporated within a few seconds. Next, a polyoxy-
methylene mold having a slightly conical hole with
a large diameter of 5 ± 0.1 mm, a small diameter
of 4.9 ± 0.1 mm, and a height of 2.0 ± 0.05 mm
Vol 4, No 4, 2002
Janda et al
Fig 3 Device to measure shear bond strength according
ISO 10477 Amendment 1.
with sharp edges, was put onto the composite
specimens. Heliobond (Ivoclar/Vivadent) was ap-
plied through this hole with a brush in an extremely
thin layer. Then the bore of the mold was filled with
the light-curing component of Variolink II. The sur-
face of Variolink II was covered with a microscopic
slide mount. Light curing was done for 40 s with a
Translux light unit (Heraeus-Kulzer, Hanau, Germa-
ny). After polymerization, the polyoxymethylene
mold was carefully removed and the Variolink II
composite cylinder remained on the composite sur-
face. After 24 h dry storage according to ISO
10477 Amendment 1, all specimens were ther-
mocycled 5000 times in water between +5 and
+55°C. The dwell time at each temperature was
30 s. Prior to measuring shear bond strength, the
specimens were brought to room temperature in a
water bath.
As a control, Empress II frame ceramic was
used. Etching was performed with Vita Ceramics
Etch (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany)
for 60 s. The etching gel was sprayed off com-
pletely with water and the ceramic surface was
dried with oil-free air. The silane solution Mono-
bond-S (Vivadent/Ivoclar) was applied, and after
60 s, the solvent was removed under an oil-free
air stream. Heliobond and Variolink II applications
as well as thermocycling were done as described
above. The shear test was carried out according to
ISO 10477 Amendment 1. The specimens were
fixed in a special apparatus for testing the shear
bond strength (Fig 3). The whole assembly was
placed in a Universal Testing Machine (Zwick, Ulm,
Germany). The cylinder formed by the luting com-
posite was loaded with a constant crosshead
speed of 1 (± 0.3) mm/min. The load at breaking
301
Janda et al
Table 1 Shear bond strengths (SBS) of Variolink II on a light-curing
and a heat-curing composite material
Material
Flame treatment time
5 s / 2 cm2
Light curing (Targis ) 25 (12)
Heat curing (SR Isosit) 17 (11)
ns
Empress II, etched, silanized (control): 27 (6)
ns = not significant
was recorded and the bond strength B was calcu-
lated in MPa using the formula B = F/S, in which F
is the load in N at breaking and S is the bonded
area of the cylinder of luting composite in mm2.
The data of shear bond tests were statistically
analyzed by two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni post
hoc test (p < 0.05) to investigate the influence of
material and flame treatment time. The recorded
data follow a normal distribution. One-way ANOVA
and the Bonferroni post hoc test (p < 0.05) was
used to compare the test groups with the control.
To investigate whether the flame-treated surfac-
es were covered with silicon atoms, they were ex-
amined using a Fourier-transform infrared spectro-
photometer (FTIR) (Biorad Laboratory, Hempstead,
UK). First, a reference spectrum of the non-sur-
face-treated specimen was scanned and stored by
the computer. Then the flame-treated specimen
was scanned, and the computer calculated the dif-
ference spectrum. Therefore, the finally recorded
spectrum only represents the treatment effect.
SEM (1810 Scanning Electron Microscope, Am-
ray, Bedford, MA, USA) investigations of the speci-
men surfaces were carried out after polishing as
well as after the different flaming times, in order to
evaluate the polished surfaces and whether the
heat occurring during the flame treatment with the
PyrosilPen influences or even destroys the charac-
teristic of the composite surfaces.
Finally, a fracture analysis was carried out by vi-
sual inspection to determine the type of failure (co-
hesive and/or adhesive).
302
mean SBS (SD) in MPa
10 s / 2 cm2 20 s / 2 cm2
23 (12) 29 (5) ns
26 (8) 26 (9) ns
ns ns
RESULTS
Means and standard deviations of shear test re-
sults are given in Table 1. No statistical difference
could be observed between Targis and SR Isosit.
However, Dental D failed totally, so that no mea-
surements could be taken after thermocycling. Sta-
tistical analysis did not reveal any significant differ-
ences between the flame treatment times of 5, 10,
and 20 s/2 cm2 for each resin (p > 0.05) and the
control.
FTIR difference (Fig 4) spectra clearly indicated
that all flame-treated surfaces were covered with
silicon atoms (strong absorption band at 1230 to
1259 cm-1). This effect was already reported with
the Silicoater technique,17,18,20,22,32,35,38,39,45 in-
dicating that the PyrosilPen functions similarly.
SEM investigation of the Dental D (thermoplastic
resin) specimens after polishing with 800-grit sand-
paper but before flaming showed a severe destruc-
tion of the surface. The surface of the specimen
was rough with projecting resin tags. This is entirely
different with Targis and SR Isosit after polishing
and before flaming. SEM reveals that after polish-
ing with 800-grit sandpaper, Targis and SR Isosit
had very smooth surfaces. No microretentive pat-
tern could be detected (Fig 5).
SEM investigation was also carried out on the
polished and flame-treated specimens. The results
are shown in Fig 6. Regarding Targis and SR Isosit,
no destruction was detected after a treatment time
of 5 s/2 cm2. The surfaces started to show a slight
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
 Janda et al

Fig 4 FTIR difference spectrum of flamed polymerized composite surface.

Fig 5 SEM image of the speci-

mens polished with 800-grit sand-
paper. No microretentive pattern or
destruction can be seen on Targis
and SR Isosit. Surface destruction
can be detected on Dental D
(340X). Targis (a), SR Isosit (b),
Dental D (c).

change after being flamed for 10 s/2 cm2 and a se-
vere destruction after 20 s/2 cm2. Therefore, flam-
ing times longer than 5 s/2 cm2 were done step-
wise in periods of 2 s. SEM revealed that this pro-
cedure did not damage composite surfaces. The be-
havior of the thermoplastic resin Dental D was again
different. The resin tags projecting from the surface
after polishing were molten after flaming, and loose-
ly cover the surface in an overlapping manner.
Furthermore, a fracture analysis to determine
cohesive and adhesive failures was conducted. In
reference to the control, only cohesive failures
could be observed in the Empress II ceramic. Con-
cerning Targis and SR Isosit, the following failure
characteristics were observed: At a treatment time
of 5 s/2 cm2, Targis showed 10% adhesive failure
and 90% cohesive in the Targis material; SR Isosit
displayed 30% adhesive failure and 70% cohesive

Vol 4, No 4, 2002 303

Janda et al
Targis
5s
20s
(10×2s)
20s
(continuously)
Fig 6 SEM images of the specimens after different flaming times (1000X).
in the SR Isosit material. At a treatment time of
10 s/2 cm2, Targis showed 20% adhesive and 80%
cohesive failure in the Targis material. At the same
treatment time, SR Isosit exhibited 50% adhesive
failure and 50% cohesive in the SR Isosit material.
At a treatment time of 20 s/2 cm2, Targis showed
100% cohesive failure in the Targis material and SR
Isosit showed 20% adhesive and 80% cohesive fail-
ure in the SR Isosit material.
The results indicate that 50% to 80% of all fail-
ures are cohesive in the SR Isosit composite and
80% to 100% in the Targis composite. This explains
the high standard deviation calculated (Table 1),
since the bond strength is higher than the inherent
strength of the tested composites.
304
SR Isosit Dental D
DISCUSSION
The shear bond strength of a luting composite on
different resin materials was investigated in this
study after using a new bonding technique called
PyrosilPen. None of the investigators in the report-
ed literature used a standardized method to evalu-
ate bond strength between the cured composite
and the luting composite. For this reason, it is very
difficult to compare the various reported in vitro re-
sults. The present investigation followed dental
standard ISO 10477 Amendment 1 – developed to
investigate bond strength between metal and resin
– to measure shear bond strength. Although it is
usually normal procedure, the composite surfaces
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

were not sandblasted or roughened to avoid the in-
fluence of microretentions on the bond strength.
The only intention of this study was to investigate
the performance of the Pyrosil technique.
Furthermore, Empress II frame ceramic was used
as the control. This is justified by the fact that nu-
merous clinical investigations16,36,44 have shown
that there is no completely optimal bond between a
polymerized composite and luting composite. How-
ever, the procedure of etched and silanized ceram-
ic/luting composite is clinically well known, proven,
and established, and is considered to be the gold
standard. To guarantee that optimal conditions
were available for this system, the manufacturer’s
instructions for use were followed. A further reason
why none of the methods described by other
authors1,6,16,29,33,36,43,44,50 was used in this
study, was that sandblasting – commonly the first
step of surface conditioning – had to be avoided in
the present study for the reasons mentioned above.
If the PyrosilPen is expected to compete, it
needs to be seen as a truly innovative and promis-
ing technique. Composite inlays and onlays are of
increasing interest in restorative dentistry. There-
fore, the question of how to adhesively bond al-
ready cured composite restorations to hard dental
tissues has been discussed by several investiga-
tors.1,7,12,16,29,31,33,36,43,44,50
With respect to the present investigation, the
most important literature shall be reviewed in more
detail, since it shows the difficulties of achieving a
good bond between a cured composite and a luting
composite.
Stokes et al43 investigated shear bond strength
between a heat-cured hybrid composite and a du-
al-curing luting composite. The specimens were
conditioned by sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid etch-
ing, and/or silanizing. Next, the dual-curing luting
composite was applied in the form of cylinders. Pri-
or to measuring shear bond strength, the speci-
mens were stored in water at 37°C for 7 days. For
all conditioning methods, shear bond strength val-
ues around 19 MPa were measured. Stokes et al
considered these values as sufficient for an accept-
able clinical performance.
Haller et al12 tested the shear bond strength of
three light-cured inlay composite materials as well
as one heat cured and the respective dual-curing lut-
ing composite. The surfaces were pretreated by sev-
eral methods. As a general conclusion, the results
showed a significant difference between the non-
thermocycled and the thermocycled group (1440
Vol 4, No 4, 2002
Janda et al
times in water between 5°C and 55°C), in addition
to a significantly better performance by the
light-cured composites (approximately 50 MPa).
Sandblasting did not significantly influence shear
bond strength of the tested materials. Without sand-
blasting, the heat-cured composite did not bond at
all (shear bond strength ca 0.4 MPa). The sand-
blasted samples achieved approximately 10 MPa.
Ludwig33 measured shear bond strength of a
heat-cured microfilled composite to a dual-curing
luting composite. The microfilled composite speci-
mens were conditioned by different methods. After
thermocycling (1000 cycles between 15°C and
65°C), lower values were obtained as compared to
the 24 h values. The conditioning methods sand-
blasting and cleaning with hydrofluoric acid etching
gel, sandblasting and cleaning with hydrofluoric
acid etching gel followed by an application of a spe-
cial MMA-containing bonder, and sandblasting and
cleaning with hydrofluoric acid etching gel followed
by 5 min of etching in an ultrasound bath with 10%
hydrofluoric acid, showed the best results with
shear bond strength values between approximately
21 and 24 MPa. The conditioning method sand-
blasting and cleaning with hydrofluoric acid etching
gel followed by 5 min of etching in an ultrasound
bath with 40% hydrofluoric acid achieved a signifi-
cantly lower bond strength of ca 15 MPa.
Krämer et al29 investigated bond strength be-
tween a light-cured hybrid composite and a dual-cur-
ing luting composite. A completely different test
method was used by preparing standardized cavi-
ties in light-cured hybrid composite specimens in
such a way that they formed holes. The inlays were
directly shaped and cured in these cavities. After
removing the inlays of the cavities, the inner surfac-
es of the cavities were sandblasted by a standard-
ized process. The inlay surfaces were conditioned
by the following methods:
1. no conditioning
2. silanizing
3. etching and silanizing
4. sandblasting
5. roughening with rotating instruments
6. roughening with rotating instruments, etching
and silanizing
7. using Rocatector -Intraoral
Then the hybrid composite inlays were inserted
into the hybrid composite cavities after the respec-
tive surface treatment by using the dual-curing lut-
305
Janda et al
ing composite. Bond strength was measured by
pushing the inlays through the cavities after 24 h
storage in water followed by 1440 thermocycles in
water between 5°C and 55°C. Bond strength values
increased from conditioning method No. 1 (ca
28 MPa) to method No. 7 (ca 48 MPa). Condition-
ing method No. 7 significantly achieved the best
performance.
Shear bond strength was also investigated by
Latta et al31 between a cured composite inlay ma-
terial and a luting composite. The surface of the
composite inlay material was treated by several
methods. Microabrasion achieved the best results.
Mehl et al,36 Hannig,16 and Zuellig-Singer et al50
investigated marginal gap formation of adhesively in-
serted composite and ceramic inlays after in vitro
and in vivo service of the inlays. After testing adhe-
sively restored extracted teeth in a chewing simula-
tion device, Mehl et al36 proved that the marginal
quality of ceramic inlays was superior to that of
light-cured hybrid composite. Zuellig-Singer et al50
investigated marginal integrity of light-cured hybrid
composite inlays and ceramic inlays. The inlays man-
ufactured of each material were inserted adhesively.
The restored teeth were exposed to a chewing sim-
ulation test. Zuellig-Singer et al reported no change
in the marginal quality after the chewing simulation
was conducted. In contrast to this study, Thordrup
et al44 found a tendency of less microleakage for ce-
ramic inlays compared to composite inlays.
Clinical tests proved that marginal integrity of
composite inlays was not as good as that of adhe-
sively inserted ceramic inlays. Hannig16 has report-
ed 67.6% marginal imperfections of heat-cured
composite inlays in Class I and 54.9% in Class II
cavities after a clinical service of seven years.
As described above, the literature reports numer-
ous, sometimes very complicated procedures for
adhesively bonding polymerized composite restora-
tions.1,7,12,16,29,31,33,35,43,44,50 The general state-
ment can be made that light-cured composites bond
significantly better to luting composites than do
heat-cured.12 Heat-cured composite restorations
achieve an acceptable shear bond strength after
sandblasting and etching with hydrofluoric acid.33 It
is very interesting that without sandblasting, no
bond at all could be achieved with heat-cured com-
posites.12 However, Rocatector-Intraoral (3M Espe,
Seefeld, Germany) seems to be a very innovative
and effective bonding technology, which Krämer et
al29 have reported as achieving the best perfor-
mance among all other tested methods. This sys-
306
tem works according to almost the same principle
as the PyrosilPen. By a blasting process, a silicon
dioxide is fixed on the composite surface. In a fol-
lowing step, a silane coupling agent is applied, cre-
ating the bond to the luting composite. However, the
first step of this system, too, is a sandblasting pro-
cedure.
As already stated above, none of the results pro-
vided by the literature can be compared directly
with ours, since each author used a different test
procedure. Only the test by Stokes et al22 is similar
to the one used in the present study. He recorded
bonding values in optimal cases of 19 MPa, which
he considered to be sufficiently high. The present
investigation proves that the PyrosilPen technique
is a further method which enables light- and
heat-cured composites to bond to luting compos-
ites with very good shear bond strength. However,
the flaming time needs to be considered, since
flaming periods longer than 10 s/2 cm2 will destroy
the resin surfaces. This time seems to be optimal,
and values of approximately 23 to 26 MPa were
achieved with SR Isosit and Targis, which are iden-
tical to the bond strength of the clinically well-prov-
en system of etched and silanized ceramic/luting
composite. It was also observed that the majority
of the fractures occurred in the polymerized com-
posite material, which is a further indication of the
strength of the bond.
Nevertheless, bonding to the thermoplastic res-
in Dental D (polyacetale) seems to be problematic.
Pretesting of this material has shown that a shear
bond strength of ca 10 MPa could be achieved with
nonthermocycled specimens. After thermocycling,
all specimens failed totally, suggesting that the lut-
ing composite and the polyacetale separated in the
thermocycling bath. When the nonthermocycled
specimens were examined with SEM after conduct-
ing the shear bond test, it was observed that the
polyacetale resin showed a flaky surface. These
scales are considered to be the residues of the
tags that had been observed after the polishing
process and prior to flaming (Fig 5). It is assumed
that the luting composite only bonds to these tags
and not to the “actual” surface. This indicates that
the luting composite had bonded to a loose surface
that separated during thermocycling under the in-
fluence of water from the firm, “actual” surface.
Whether or not this is true can only be confirmed
by a further investigation using a surface treatment
method other than polishing, that does not destroy
the surface of the polyacetale resin.
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

CONCLUSIONS
The new bonding technology investigated here, the
PyrosilPen, is considered to be a very helpful and
effective tool for chairside surface treatment of po-
lymerized composite resins to obtain good bonding
to luting composites. Further investigations are re-
quired to determine whether it is possible to effec-
tively apply this technique to other resin types.
REFERENCES
1. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Rosentritt A, Schneider-Feyrer S, Han-
del G. In-vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adap-
tation of fiber-reinforced adhesive fixed partial inlay den-
tures. J Dent 1999;27:163-168.
2. De Shepper EJ, Tate WH, Powers JM. Bond strength of resin
cement to microfilled composites. Am J Dent 1993;6:
235-238.
3. Donly KJ, Jensen ME, Triolo P, Chan D. A clinical comparison
of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and
cast-gold restorations at 7 years. Quintessence Int 1999;30:
163-168.
4. Ebert J, Kunzelmann KH, Krämer N, Pelka M. Schadensan-
alyse bei Adhäsivinlays am Beispiel VisioGem. Dtsch Zah-
närztl Z 1994;49:932-936.
5. Ernst CP, Muche A, Willershausen-Zönnchen B, Hickel R. In-vit-
ro-Untersuchung zur Oberflächenbehandlung von Komposit-
inlay-Innenseiten. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1994;49:273-275.
6. Feinman RA, Smidt A. A combination/porcelainfiber-rein-
forced composite: a case report. Pract Periodontics Aesthet
Dent 1997;9:925-929.
7. Frankenberger R, Strobel WO, Baresel J, Trapper T, Kramer
N, Petschelt A. Effect of surface treatment on fatigue behav-
iour between Tetric Ceram inlays and Variolink luting com-
posite. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5:260-265.
8. Giordano R. Fiber-reinforced composite resin systems. Gen
Dent 2000;48:244-249.
9. Göbel R, Luthardt R, Welker D. Experimentelle Untersuchun-
gen zur Befestigung von Restaurationen aus Zirkonoxid und
Titan. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1998;53:295-298.
10. Göbel R, Welker, D. Etablierte und neuentwickelte Met-
all-Kunststoff-Verbundverfahren im experimentellen Ver-
gleich. Dtsch Zahnärtzl Z 1999;54: 644-647.
11. Haller B, Klaiber B, Secknus A. Randschluß zervikaler Kom-
positinlays in vitro. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1990;45:296-299.
12. Haller B, Klaiber B, Tarenz O, Hofmann N. Zur Verbundfes-
tigkeit zwischen Kompositinlay und Befestigungskomposit.
Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1990;45:669-672.
13. Hannig M, Albers HK, Prieshoff T, Weinle S. REM-Untersu-
chungen zur Nacharbeitung der Befestigungskompositfuge
adhäsiv zementierter Kompositinlays. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z
1990;45:672-675.
14. Hannig M, Albers KH. Kompositinlays aus SR-Isosit im
klinischen Kurzzeittest. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1990;45:236- 239.
15. Hannig M, Weinle S, Albers HK. Der Einfluß modifizierter Prä-
parationsformen auf die Randqualität on Kompositinlays aus
SR-Isosit. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1991;46:609-611.
Vol 4, No 4, 2002
Janda et al
16. Hannig M. Das Randschlussverhalten von Kompositinlays
aus SR-Isosit. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1996;51:595-597.
17. Hansson O, Moberg LE. Evaluation of three silicoating meth-
ods for resin-bonded protheses. Scand J Dent Res 1993;
101:243-251.
18. Hansson O. Strength of bond with with Comspan Opaque to
three silicoated alloys and titanium. Scand J Dent Res 1990;
98:248-256.
19. Hasegawa EA, Boyer DB, Chan DCN. Microleakage of indirect
composite inlay. Dent Mat 1989;5:388-391.
20. Hero H, Ruyter IE, Waarli ML, Huitquist G. Adhesion of resins
to Ag-Pd alloy by means of the silicoating technique. J Dent
Res 1987;66:1380-1385.
21. Hornbrook DS. Placement protocol for an anterior fiber-rein-
forced composite restoration. Pract Periodontics Aesthet
Dent 1997;9:1-5.
22. Hummel SK, Pace LL, Marker VA. A comparison of two sili-
coating techniques. J Prosthodont 1994;3:108-113.
23. Janda R. Kleben und Klebetechniken. dental-labor 1992;40:
409-415 / 615-628.
24. Kappert HF, Schüren M, Fritsch F. Dauerfestigkeitsprüfung
des Metall-Kunststoff-Verbundes unter dem Einfluss von
Temperaturlastwechseln Quintessenz Zahntech 1996;22:
293-307.
25. Kern M, Simon MHP, Strub JR. Clinical evaluation of all-ce-
ramic zirconia posts. A pilot study [abstract 2234]. J Dent
Res 1997;76:293.
26. Kilda KK, Ruyter IE. How different curing methods affect
mechanical properties of composites for inlays when test-
ed in dry and wet conditions. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:353-
361.
27. Kildal KK, Ruyter IE. How different curing methods affect the
degree of conversion of resin-based inlay/onlay materials.
Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:315-322.
28. Koczarski MJ. Utilization of ceromer inlays/onlays for re-
placement of amalgam restorations. Pract Periodontics Aes-
thet Dent 1998;10:405-412.
29. Krämer N, Popp S, Sindel J, Frankenberger R. Einfluß der Vor-
behandlung von Kompositinlays auf die Verbundfestigkeit.
Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1996;51:598-601.
30. Krecji I, Boretti R, Giezzendanner P, Lutz F. Adhesive crowns
and fixed partial dentures fabricated of Ceromer/FRC: clini-
cal and laboratory procedures. Pract Periodontics Aesthet
Dent 1998;10:487-498.
31. Latta MA, Barkmeier WW. Bond strength of a resin cement
to a cured composite inlay material. J Prosthet Dent 1994;
71:189-193.
32. Leinfelder KF, Lacefield WR, Bell W. Effectiveness of a meth-
od used in bonding resins to metal. J Prosthet Dent 1990;
64:37-41.
33. Ludwig K. Untersuchungen zur Verbundfestigkeit von Com-
posite und Dualzement. dental-labor 1992;40:2103-2107.
34. Manhart J, Chen HY, Meuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrun-
ner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of composite
and ceramic inlays. Am J Dent 2001;14:95-99.
35. Mazurat RD, Pesun S. Resin-metal bonding systems: a review
of the Silicoating and Kevloc systems. J Can Dent Assoc
1998;64:503-507.
36. Mehl A, Godescha P, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Randspal-
tverhalten von Komposit- und Keramikinlays bei ausgedehnt-
en Kavitäten. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1996;51:701-704.
307
Janda et al
37. Musil R, Tiller, HJ. Das Silicoater Verfahren nach fünfjähriger
klinischer Bewährung. Zahnärztl Praxis 1989;4:124-128.
38. Musil R, Tiller, HJ. Der Kunststoff-Metall-Verbund Silicoater-
verfahren. Heidelberg: Hüthig, 1989.
39. Nord RS. Kulzer’s Silicoater: a new technique for bonding
methacrylates to metal. Trends Tech Contemp Dent Lab
1986;3:32-46.
40. Reinhardt 18KJ. Seitenzahnrestauration mit Composite-Fül-
lung oder Inlay. Phillip J 1994;11:465-472.
41. Rosenthal L, Trinkner T, Pescatore C. A new system for pos-
terior restorations: a combination of ceramic optimized poly-
mer and fiber-reinforced composite. Pract Periodontics Aes-
thet Dent 1997;9:6-10.
42. Sindel J, Ebert J. Einfluß von Befestigungskompositen und
Haftvermittler auf die biaxiale Biegefestigkeit sandgestrahl-
ter Komposite. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1995;50:459-462.
43. Stokes AN, Tay WM, Pereira P B. Shear bond of resin cement
to post-cured hybrid composites. Dent Mat 1993;9:370-374.
44. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. Comparison of mar-
ginal fit and microleakage of ceramic and composite inlays:
an in vitro study. J Dent 1994;22:147-153.
308
45. US Patent 4,600,390. Apparatus and method for applying a
silicon oxide-containing adhesion-promoting layer on metallic
dental prostheses, Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany.
46. Vojvodic D, Predanic-Gasparac H, Brkic H, Celebic A. The
bond strength of polymers and metal surfaces using the sil-
icoater technique. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:493-499.
47. Wendt SL, Leinfelder KF. Clinical evaluation of a heat-treated
resin composite inlay: 3-year results. Am J dent 1992;5;258-
262.
48. Wirz J, Schmidli F. Neue Kunststoff-Metall-Verbundsysteme
und ihre legierungsabhängige Haftqualität. Quintessenz
1996;47:1231-1240.
49. Zanghellini G. Fiber-reinforced framework and Ceromer res-
torations: a technical review. Signature 1997;4:1-5.
50. Zuellig-Singer R, Krejci I, Lutz F. Effects of cement-curing
modes on dentin bonding of inlays. J Dent Res 1992;71:
1842-1846.
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry