Effects of Surface Treatments and Cement Type on Shear Bond Strength between Titanium Alloy and All-Ceramic Materials

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of surface treatments and resin cement on the adhesion of ceramic and ceramic-like materials to titanium. A total of 40 specimens (5 mm diameter) of each material (lithium disilicate glass ceramic (LDGC-IPS e.maxCAD), lithium silicate glass ceramic (LSGC-VITA Suprinity) and a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN-Vita Enamic)) were fabricated using CAD/CAM technologies. In total, 120 titanium (Ti) specimens were divided into 12 groups, and half of the titanium specimens were tribochemically coated using CoJet. The titanium and all-ceramic specimens were cemented using either Self-curing adhesive cement (SCAC-Panavia 21) or a Self-curing luting composite (SCLC-Multilink Hybrid Abutment). After 5000 cycles of thermal aging, the shear bond strength (SBS) test was conducted using a universal testing machine. The failure modes of the specimens were analyzed using stereomicroscopy, and additionally, the representative specimens were observed using Scanning Electron Microscopy. ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis (p < 0.05). The post-hoc Duncan test was used to determine significant differences between the groups. The mean SBS values (mean ± STD) ranged from 15 ± 2 MPa to 29 ± 6 MPa. Significantly higher SBS values were acquired when the titanium surface was tribochemically coated (p < 0.05). The SCLC showed higher SBS values compared to the SCAC. While the LDGC showed the highest SBS values, the PICN presented the lowest. The tribochemical coating on the cementation surfaces of the titanium increased the SBS values. The specimens cemented with the SCLC showed higher SBS values than those with the SCAC. Additionally, the SCLC cement revealed a more significant increase in SBS values when used with the LDGC. The material used for restoration has a high impact on SBS than those of the cement and surface conditioning.

Keywords: aging; air abrasion; ceramic; dental materials; polymer-infiltrated ceramic network; prosthodontics; shear bond strength; titanium alloy.

Figure 1

Debonded implant crown (right) and variobase (left). Traces of bonding cement are visible on the surface of the Variobase.

Figure 2

Illustration of the distribution of the experimental groups. SCLS: Self-Curing Luting Composite, SCAC: Self-Curing Adhesive Cement, LSGC: lithium silicate glass ceramic, LDGC: lithium disilicate glass ceramic, PICN: polymer-infiltrated ceramic network.

Figure 3

Tribochemically conditioned (A) and non-conditioned titanium specimens (B).

Figure 4

Mean shear bond Strength and standard deviation values of test groups according to one-way analysis of variance (MPa) (p = 0.001).

Figure 5

Shear bond strength results of ceramics and ceramic-like materials. LDGC: lithium disilicate glass ceramics, LSGC: lithium silicate glass ceramics, PICN: polymer-infiltrated ceramic network; SD: standard deviation.

Figure 6

SEM images of titanium specimens after shear bond strength testing. LDGC groups 1–4 (Group 1 (A), Group 2 (B), Group 3 (C), Group 4 (D)); LSGC groups 5–8 (Group 5 (E), Group 6 (F), Group 7 (G), Group 8 (H)); and PICN groups 9–12 (Group 9 (I), Group 10 (J), Group 11 (K), Group 12 (L)). All even group numbers were treated with Panavia 21, and odd group numbers with Multilink Hybrid Abutment luting cement.

Figure 7

SiO₂ distribution in the elemental examination of the non-cemented titanium samples with EDAX (the areas where the blue dots are concentrated show the places where SiO₂ was detected). Tribochemical coating titanium sample (A), titanium specimen without tribochemical coating (B).