Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 20;61(7):1118.
doi: 10.3390/medicina61071118.

An In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Ceramic Material, Surface Treatment, and Adhesive Cement on Shear Bond Strength in Prosthodontics

Izabella Éva Mureșan  1 , Diana Cerghizan  1 , Attila Gergely  2 , Rudolf-László Farmos  2 , László Jakab-Farkas  2 , John-Jason Șimon  3 , Bernadette Kerekes-Máthé  1 , Dóra-Anna Giliga  4 , Esztella Éva Kis  1 , Kinga Mária Jánosi  1 , Krisztina Mártha  1
Affiliations

An In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Ceramic Material, Surface Treatment, and Adhesive Cement on Shear Bond Strength in Prosthodontics

Izabella Éva Mureșan et al. Medicina (Kaunas). .

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Ensuring the optimal shear bond strength (SBS) is essential for the long-term success of prosthodontic restorations. Our in vitro study aimed to evaluate the SBS of three types of ceramics (feldspathic, alumina, and lithium disilicates) using three adhesive cements (Variolink Esthetic LC, Variolink Esthetic DC, and Maxcem Elite). Materials and Methods: Healthy molars were prepared, and ceramic blocks were cemented following universally accepted luting protocols. SBS tests were performed using a custom-made testing machine. A multiple linear regression model assessed the effects of ceramic type, surface treatment, and luting agent on SBS. Results: The regression model explained 61.3% of the variation in SBS values (R2 = 0.613); the adjusted R2 = 0.605 confirmed the model's robustness. The global F-test was statistically significant (F = 78.96, p < 0.001). The total-etch technique (+4.47), the use of feldspathic ceramic, and 5% hydrofluoric acid treatment (+3.28) significantly affected SBS. Feldspathic ceramic and lithium disilicate showed superior performance against alumina. Light-cured and self-cured cement showed negative effects. Conclusions: Ceramic material and cement type have combined effects on SBS. Optimal results were obtained with the total-etch technique, feldspathic ceramic, 5% hydrofluoric acid treatment, and dual-cured cement.

Keywords: adhesive cement; ceramics; shear bond strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The samples prepared for the shear bond strength test: (a) the flat enamel surface obtained after using the Micracut 151 Metkon device (Metkon USA Inc. Greenville SC 29662, USA) at 500 rotations/min; (b) the luted ceramic block on the flat axial surface; and (c) the proper cementation of the ceramic block to the enamel surface, ensured by using a cementation guide.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of SBS mean values by experimental group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The aspect of the tooth and ceramic surface after SBS testing: (a) adhesive failure—lake of cementum on the enamel surface; (b) adhesive failure—luting cement (DC) on the ceramic fragment (felspathic); (c) adhesive failure—cementum fragments (DC) on the enamel; (d) adhesive failure—lake of cementum on the ceramic fragment (alumina); (e) cohesive failure—cementum fragments (DC) on the enamel; (f) cohesive failure—cementum fragments (DC) on the ceramic block (alumina); (g) mix failure—luting cement (LC) and ceramic fragments on the enamel; (h) mix failure—cementum fragments (LC) on the fractured ceramic (feldspathic).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Rostamzadeh M., Rahimi F. Aesthetic Dentistry and Ethics: A Systematic Review of Marketing Practices and Overtreatment in Cosmetic Dental Procedures. BMC Med. Ethics. 2025;26:12. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01169-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yu H., Zhao Y., Li J., Luo T., Gao J., Liu H., Liu W., Liu F., Zhao K., Liu F., et al. Minimal Invasive Microscopic Tooth Preparation in Esthetic Restoration: A Specialist Consensus. Int. J. Oral. Sci. 2019;11:31. doi: 10.1038/s41368-019-0057-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Matos J.D.M., Lopes G.R.S., Queiroz D.A., Nakano L.J.N., Ribeiro N.C.R., Barbosa A.B., Anami L.C., Bottino M.A. Dental Ceramics: Fabrication Methods and Aesthetic Characterization. Coatings. 2022;12:1228. doi: 10.3390/coatings12081228. - DOI
    1. Fouda A.M., Atta O., Özcan M., Stawarczyk B., Glaum R., Bourauel C. An Investigation on Fatigue, Fracture Resistance, and Color Properties of Aesthetic CAD/CAM Monolithic Ceramics. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023;27:2653–2665. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04833-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oye E., Owen A. Revolutionary Advancements in CAD/CAM Systems: Transforming the Future of Dental Restoration. 2024. [(accessed on 1 July 2024)]. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388824434.

LinkOut - more resources