Tensile bond strengths of five luting agents to two CAD-CAM restorative materials and enamel.

ABSTRACT

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: CAD-CAM restorative materials are popular because they have high esthetic value and short fabrication time. Unfortunately these materials are brittle and tend to fracture under heavy occlusal load. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the tensile bond strengths of 5 luting agents to 2 CAD-CAM restorative materials and enamel. Material and methods One hundred truncated cones, with a 3-mm diameter bonding surface and 5-mm diameter base, were fabricated with Dicor MGC (n=50) or Cerec Vitablocs Mark II (n=50) with the Cerec system. Enamel surfaces of the crowns of 100 freshly extracted noncarious, anterior teeth, stored in 0.9% saline solution with 0.25% sodium azide (NaN(3)) as disinfectant, were prepared with sandpaper disks (320-grit size) on the Buehler Variable Speed Grinder-Polisher. The bonding surfaces of the Dicor MGC or Cerec Vitablocs Mark II truncated cones from each of the 2 tests systems were airborne particle abraded, chemically etched, and cemented on the prepared enamel surface of the tooth specimens with 5 luting agents Vita Cerec Duo Cement, EnForce, Panavia 21, C&B Metabond, and Fuji Duet. All specimens were thermocycled 1000 times, in 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C water with a dwell time of 30 seconds in each temperature. Tensile force (MPa) was applied perpendicular to the bonding surfaces of the specimens with a universal testing machine until fracture. Fracture patterns were examined with a microscope at original magnification x10. The differences in the tensile bond strengths were analyzed with the Tukey-Kramer test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The mean tensile bond strengths of Dicor MGC bonding to enamel with luting agents in descending order in MPa were EnForce (10.12 +/- 2.25), Panavia 21 (7.28 +/- 1.77), Cerec Duo (5.32 +/- 1.65), Fuji Duet (3.73 +/- 1.78), and C&B Metabond (3.11 +/- 1.11). EnForce had a significantly higher bond strength than C&B Metabond, Fuji Duet, Cerec Duo, and Panavia 21 (P=.05). The mean tensile bond strengths of Cerec Vitablocs Mark II bonding to enamel with luting agents in descending order in MPa were as follow Fuji Duet (11.51 +/- 2.79), EnForce (9.44 +/- 2.03), C&B Metabond (8.98 +/- 3.29), Cerec Duo (8.66 +/- 4.71), and Panavia 21 (5.10 +/- 2.49). Within this group, there was no significant difference between Fuji Duet and EnForce, but the bond strength of Fuji Duet was significantly higher than that of C&B Metabond, Panavia 21, and Cerec Duo (P=.05). The mean tensile strength of all the luting agents bonded to Cerec Vitablocs Mark II and enamel (8.74 MPa) was higher than Dicor MGC and enamel (5.91 MPa). CONCLUSION: In this in vitro study; within the Dicor MGC group, the mean bond strength of Panavia 21 with enamel was significantly higher than C&B Metabond, Panavia 21, Cerec Duo, and Fuji Duet. Within the Cerec Vitablocs Mark II group, the mean bond strength of Fuji Duet was significantly higher than C&B Metabond, Panavia 21, and Cerec Duo but was not significantly higher than EnForce.