Bond versus resin-bonded
rebond strengths of three fixed partial dentures
Vincent D. Williams, DDS, MS,a Ana Diaz-Arnold, Steven A. Aquilino, DDS, MSc University
of Iowa,
College
of Dentistry,
Iowa
City,
luting
agents
for
DDS, MS,b and
Iowa
Recently, new luting materials have been claimed to have adhesion to metal and tooth structure. This study determined if rebonding the specimens affected their tensile bond strength. Ten samples each of Rexillium III metal cylinders (12 x 6.3 mm) were bonded and rebonded with Comspan Panavia and Super-bond materials. The film thickness was controlled with a micrometer device at 20 pm. The samples were stored for 24 hours in deionized water at 37’ C and were then thermocycled for 24 hours and tested for tensile failure on an Instron testing machine. A stereomicroscope was used to determine adhesive/cohesive failure. The results showed a significant ditrerence at p > 0.01 in tensile bond strengths (bond versus rebond strength) for all three luting agents. Most of the failures were adhesive in nature. (J PROSTHET DENT 1992;67:289-92.)
R
ecent advancesin adhesiverestorative dentistry, particularly adhesion to both tooth and metal, have prompted interest in luting agentsfor resin-bonded prostheses.Recently, Panavia (Panavia, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and Super-bond C & B (Super-Bond C & B, Sun Medical Co. Ltd, Kyoto City, Japan) have claimed adhesion to tooth structure (bovine), and to nickel-chrome, chrome-cobalt, and tin-plated noble metals (Watanabe et all). This study determined if both of thesenew luting agents would rebond to metal with the original bond strength. Electroetching a nickel-chrome alloy, Rexillium III (Jeneric Gold Co., Wallingford, Conn.), and luting with Comspanresin (L. D. Caulk Co., Milford, Del.) wasusedfor the control group. METHODS
AND
MATERIAL
Sixty cylinders were prepared, invested, and cast in Rexillium alloy. Plexiglassrods (Plexiforms Inc., Iowa City, Iowa) 12 mm long and 6.325 mm in diameter were usedas patterns. A drill presswasusedto drill a %-inch holein one end of the sample.The sampleswere machined to a go-degree angle with a machinist’s lathe. All cylinders were oxidized in a calibrated porcelain furnace (Flagship VPF, J. F. Jelenko Co., Armonk, N.Y.) at lOlOo C. For the initial Presented before the Iowa Section for Dental Research, University aProfessor, Department of Family bAssociate Professor, Department CGraduate Director, Prosthodontics, tics.
of the International Association of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Dentistry. of Family Dentistry. Department of Prosthodon-
10/l/29666
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
Fig. 1. Micrometer devicefor ensuringfilm thicknessand alignment of cylinders.
bond study, group I (Comspan)was prepared for electroetching (Esmadent, Highland Park, Ill.) as described by Thompsonet al2 Group II (Super-bond C & B) and group III (Panavia) were sandblasted(Omega Micro Pencil Air Abrasive Unit, Sterngold, Stamford, Conn.) with 50 pm aluminum oxide (AlsOs) for 15 seconds,as described by Omura et a1.3Groups II and III were then cleaned in double distilled water for 10 minutes in an ultrasonic cleaner. All three groups(10samplesper group) wereluted with the adhesive agents, as directed in each manufacturer’s instructions. A micrometer device (Fig. 1) controlled the film thicknessto an accuracy of 10 pm and confirmed the alignment of the two cylinders while they were luting. The luting agent film thicknessusedfor this study was20 pm. The three groupswerestored in distilled water for 24 hours and were then thermocycled between 5’ C and 60’ C for 24 hours (1030cycles). The sampleswere then tested for tensile failure (Fig. 2). An Instron (Instron Corp., Canton,
WILLIAMS,
DIAZ-ARNOLD,
AND
Fig. 4. Adhesive failure of luting agent. (Original fication
Fig. 2. Tensile
testing
of specimen
on Instron
AQUILINO
magni-
X5.5.)
testing
machine.
Fig. 5. Degradation of composite inal magnification X17.2.)
Fig. 3. Cohesive failure fication X13.‘)
of luting
agent. (Original
magni-
Mass.) testing machine with a cross-head speed of 0.5 cm/ min and a 500 kg load cell was used. The tensile load at failure was used as the measure of the adhesive bond strength. A stereomicroscope (A. 0. Scientific Instruments, Warner-Lambert, Buffalo, N.Y.) was used to determine if the failures were adhesive or cohesive. For the rebond portion of the study, group I had the composite resin burned off in a casting oven (Accu-Therm 250, J. F. Jelenko Co.) at 600’ C for 10 minutes, as recommended by Thompson and Livaditis.4 The specimens were sandblasted with 50 pm Ale03 for 15 seconds, reelectro-
290
resin luting agent. (Orig-
etched, and then rebonded with Comspan resin. Groups II and III were sandblasted with A1203 for 15 seconds per sample, cleaned in double distilled water for 10 minutes in an ultrasonic cleaner, and then rebonded with the respective cements. The samples were tested for failure in tension as previously described. The raw data were statistically analyzed with a dependent t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS The means, standard deviations, range, standard error of the mean, and the coefficients of variation for all three groups are listed in Table I. The dependent t test showed a significant difference at the 0.01 level of confidence between bond versus rebond strength for all three groups (Table II).
MARCH
1992
VOLUME
07
NUMBER
3
BONDIREBOND
STRENGTHS
OF LUTING
AGENTS
I. Means, range, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and coefficient of variation for bond and rebond strengths for three luting agents in megapascals (MPa)
Table
Mean
Range
S.D.
S.E.M.
C.V.
10 10
44.6 33.6
34.4-56.7 12.4-42.1
7.9 9.4
2.5 3.0
11.7 28.3
10 10
37.2 31.1
23.2-45.2 19.2-42.1
5.9 6.5
1.9 2.0
15.8 20.8
10
54.3
42.5-66.0
8.3
2.6
15.3
10
39.4
17.4-54.8
11.6
3.7
29.6
No.
Comspan Bond Rebond Super-bond Bond Rebond Panavia Bond Rebond
The ANOVA showed a difference between the means of the bond strength group (Table III) at the 0.05 confidence level. No difference was found between the means of the rebond strength groups, as shown in Table IV, at the 0.05 confidence level. An ANOVA of the differences between the three luting agents showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level (Table V). Evaluation and analysis of the tested specimens with the stereomicroscope showed that Panavia cement exhibited cohesive failures at the initial bond (48 hours) and adhesive failures at the rebond (48 hours). Super-bond C & B and Comspan cements exhibited adhesive failures for both the bond and rebond tests. A cohesive failure is depicted in Fig. 3 and an adhesive failure is shown in Fig. 4. Adhesive and cohesive failures are summarized in Table VI. DISCUSSION This study shows clinical relevance in resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. Other studies5-l4 have shown an 18% to 30% debond rate with these restorations. If resin-bonded prostheses can be rebonded, it is of clinical importance to know if the new adhesive luting agents rebond as well the second time as they did originally. The electroetch procedure was used as a control, since this mode of attachment has been popular for many years. Panavia resin showed the highest initial mean bond strength (54.3 MPa), followed by Comspan and Superbond C & B resins, respectively (Table III). All the mean bond strengths were three to four times the strength of the composite resin-enamel interface, so they should be of adequate strength for resin-bonded prostheses. Rebond strengths are compared in Table IV. Panavia resin demonstrated the highest metal composite strength (39.4 MPa), but there was no statistically significant difference between the three luting agents. The differences in bond versus rebond strengths (Table II) are statistically different at the 0.01 level of significance for Comspan, Super-bond C & B, and Panavia, materials, respectively. This finding may not be of clinical significance, since the rebond strengths continued to be two to
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
II. Differences in bond versus rebond strength in megapascals (MPa) within each of three luting agents
Table
Mean difference
Comspan Super-bond Panavia *Dependent
11.0 6.0 15.0
S.D.
t*
PR>t
10.4 5.3
3.36 3.61
0.0084 0.0056
15.0
3.17
0.0114
t test.
III. Bond strengths of three luting agents in megapascals (MPa)
Table
No.
Panavia Comspan Super-bond
10 10 10
Means with different letters are different (Duncan’s multiple range test).
Mean 54.3 44.6 37.2
Duncan grouping A B C
at the 0.05 level of significance
three times the strength of the resin-enamel interface. This finding agrees with the work of Mee et a1.,i5 which showed that strengths of bonded versus rebonded electroetched metal samples were significantly different. Naifeh et a1.,16 using a bovine tooth-resin-etched-metal system, determined that rebond strengths were significantly lower than initial bond strengths at the 0.05 level for all experimental groups tested. However, Jassem et a1.,17using extracted human central incisors and orthodontic bands, showed no significant difference in bond versus rebond tensile or shear strengths. These two studies, in comparison with this study, introduced a second interface (namely the tooth), so that more variables need to be controlled. The differences in loss of bond strength between Panavia, Super-bond C & B, and Comspan materials were not significantly different (Table V). This would indicate that whatever the variable was that accounted for the loss of bond strength from that of the initial bond affected all bonding systems equally. The only variable that was not
291
WILLIAMS,
IV. Rebond strengths megapascals (MPa)
Table
of three luting agents in DUllCSUl Meall
No.
Panavia Comspan Super-bond
10 10 10
39.4
33.6 31.1
Means with the same letter are not different (Duncan’s multiple range test).
grouping A A A
at the 0.05 level of significance
REFERENCES
2.
No.
Mean
10 10 10
15.0 11.0 f6.0
Means with the same letter are not different (Duncan’s multiple range test).
Duncan grouping
3. 4.
A
5.
A A
6.
at the 0.05 level of significance
I. 8. 9.
Table
VI.
Type of bonding failure 10.
Bond Rebond
AQUILINO
2. The loss of bond strength may not be of clinical significance as all three luting agents have rebond strengths that are approximately three times the composite-enamel bond strength. 3. Panavia resin rebond specimens showed a degradation of the bond. Adhesive failures were the most common type observed.
V.
Panavia Comspan Super-bond
AND
1. Watanabe
Differences in bond strength between three luting agents in megapascals (MPa)
Table
DIAZ-ARNOLD,
Comspan
Super-bond
Adhesive Adhesive
Adhesive Adhesive
Panavia Cohesive Adhesive
tested on the rebond group was the air firing (oxidizing) procedure, as this is something that would be done initially before the addition of the porcelain. Both Comspan and Super-bond C & B materials showed a majority of adhesive failures at both the initial bond and rebond testing. Initial Panavia resin bonds were all cohesive failures. Panavia resin rebond specimens had mostly adhesive failures and a beginning degradation of the composite bond (Fig. 5) became apparent (as visualized with the stereomicroscope). A previous study by usls also showed a degradation of the Panavia resin bond after 30 days’ storage and after 1080 cycles of thermocycling. This finding differs from the results of the study of Watanabe et al.,l in which no destruction of the Panavia resin bond (cohesive failure) was detected following 24 hours’ to 30 days’ storage in water. The difference could be caused by the control of film thickness and the effects of thermocycling, which were done in this study.
F, Powers JM, Lorey RE. In vitro bonding of prosthodontic adhesives to dental alloys. J Dent Res 1988;67:479-83. Thompson VP, Livaditis GJ, DelCastillo E. Resin bond to electrolytically etched nonprecious alloys for resin bonded prostheses [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1981;60:377. Omura I, Yamauche J, Harada I, Wada T. Adhesive and mechanical properties of a new dental adhesive [Abstract]. J Dent Res 19M;63:233. Thompson VP, Livaditis GJ. Etched casting acid etch composite bonded posterior bridges. J Pediatr Dent 1982;4:38-43. Kuhlke KL, Drennon DC. An alternative to the anterior single tooth removable partial denture. J Int Assoc Dent Child 197’7;8:11-5. Denehy GE, Howe DF. A conservative approach to the missing anterior tooth. Quintessence Int 1979;7:23-9. Shaw MJ, Tay WM. Clinical performance of resin-bonded cast metal bridges (Rochette bridges). Br Dent J 1982;152:378-80. Livaditis GJ, Thompson VP. Etched castings: an improved retentive mechanism for resin-bonded retainers. J PROSTHET DENT 1982;47:52-8. Bergendal B, Hallonsten AL, Kock G, Ludvigsson N, Olgart K. Composite retained onlay bridges. Swed Dent J 1983;7:217-25. Eshleman JR, Moon PC, Barnes RF. Clinical evaluation of cast metal resin-bonded anterior fixed partial dentures. J PROSTHET DENT 1984;
51:761-4. 11. Ekstrand
K. Erfarenheter av 120 kompositretinerade palaggsbroar. Tandlaktidn 1984;76:987-93. 12. Williams VD, Thayer KE, Denehy GE, Bayer DB. Cast metal, resin bonded prostheses: a ten year retrospective study. J PHOSTHET DENT 1989;61:436-41. 13. van der Veen H, Bronsdijk
14. 15. 16.
17.
18.
B, van de Poe1 F. Clinical evaluation of resin bonded bridges with perforated retainers; six year results. Quintessence Dent Techniques 1987;11:51-6. Thompson VP, Wood M. Etched casting bonded retainer recalls: results at 3-5 years [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1986;65:311. Mee TR, Skeeters TM, Hinton T. The tensile strength of rebonded resin-bonded bridges [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1985,64:362. Naifeh D, Wendt SL Jr, Dormois LD, McKnight JP. A laboratory evalnation of rebond strengths of solid retainers of the acid-etched fixed partial denture. J PROSTHET DENT 1988;59:583-7. Jassem HA, Retief DH, Jamison HC. Tensile and shear strengths of bonded and rebonded orthodontic attachments [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1981;60:626. Diaz-Arnold AM, Williams VD, Aquiline SA. Tensile strengths of luting agents for adhesive fixed partial dentures. lnt J Prosthodont 1989;2:115-22.
Reprint
requests
to:
DR. VINCENT D. WILLIAMS COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 52242
CONCLUSIONS 1. Bond versus rebond strengths for all three luting agents are significantly less at the 0.01 confidence level.
292
MARCH
1992
VOLUME
67
NUMBER
3
rebond strengths of three fixed partial dentures
Vincent D. Williams, DDS, MS,a Ana Diaz-Arnold, Steven A. Aquilino, DDS, MSc University
of Iowa,
College
of Dentistry,
Iowa
City,
luting
agents
for
DDS, MS,b and
Iowa
Recently, new luting materials have been claimed to have adhesion to metal and tooth structure. This study determined if rebonding the specimens affected their tensile bond strength. Ten samples each of Rexillium III metal cylinders (12 x 6.3 mm) were bonded and rebonded with Comspan Panavia and Super-bond materials. The film thickness was controlled with a micrometer device at 20 pm. The samples were stored for 24 hours in deionized water at 37’ C and were then thermocycled for 24 hours and tested for tensile failure on an Instron testing machine. A stereomicroscope was used to determine adhesive/cohesive failure. The results showed a significant ditrerence at p > 0.01 in tensile bond strengths (bond versus rebond strength) for all three luting agents. Most of the failures were adhesive in nature. (J PROSTHET DENT 1992;67:289-92.)
R
ecent advancesin adhesiverestorative dentistry, particularly adhesion to both tooth and metal, have prompted interest in luting agentsfor resin-bonded prostheses.Recently, Panavia (Panavia, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and Super-bond C & B (Super-Bond C & B, Sun Medical Co. Ltd, Kyoto City, Japan) have claimed adhesion to tooth structure (bovine), and to nickel-chrome, chrome-cobalt, and tin-plated noble metals (Watanabe et all). This study determined if both of thesenew luting agents would rebond to metal with the original bond strength. Electroetching a nickel-chrome alloy, Rexillium III (Jeneric Gold Co., Wallingford, Conn.), and luting with Comspanresin (L. D. Caulk Co., Milford, Del.) wasusedfor the control group. METHODS
AND
MATERIAL
Sixty cylinders were prepared, invested, and cast in Rexillium alloy. Plexiglassrods (Plexiforms Inc., Iowa City, Iowa) 12 mm long and 6.325 mm in diameter were usedas patterns. A drill presswasusedto drill a %-inch holein one end of the sample.The sampleswere machined to a go-degree angle with a machinist’s lathe. All cylinders were oxidized in a calibrated porcelain furnace (Flagship VPF, J. F. Jelenko Co., Armonk, N.Y.) at lOlOo C. For the initial Presented before the Iowa Section for Dental Research, University aProfessor, Department of Family bAssociate Professor, Department CGraduate Director, Prosthodontics, tics.
of the International Association of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Dentistry. of Family Dentistry. Department of Prosthodon-
10/l/29666
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
Fig. 1. Micrometer devicefor ensuringfilm thicknessand alignment of cylinders.
bond study, group I (Comspan)was prepared for electroetching (Esmadent, Highland Park, Ill.) as described by Thompsonet al2 Group II (Super-bond C & B) and group III (Panavia) were sandblasted(Omega Micro Pencil Air Abrasive Unit, Sterngold, Stamford, Conn.) with 50 pm aluminum oxide (AlsOs) for 15 seconds,as described by Omura et a1.3Groups II and III were then cleaned in double distilled water for 10 minutes in an ultrasonic cleaner. All three groups(10samplesper group) wereluted with the adhesive agents, as directed in each manufacturer’s instructions. A micrometer device (Fig. 1) controlled the film thicknessto an accuracy of 10 pm and confirmed the alignment of the two cylinders while they were luting. The luting agent film thicknessusedfor this study was20 pm. The three groupswerestored in distilled water for 24 hours and were then thermocycled between 5’ C and 60’ C for 24 hours (1030cycles). The sampleswere then tested for tensile failure (Fig. 2). An Instron (Instron Corp., Canton,
WILLIAMS,
DIAZ-ARNOLD,
AND
Fig. 4. Adhesive failure of luting agent. (Original fication
Fig. 2. Tensile
testing
of specimen
on Instron
AQUILINO
magni-
X5.5.)
testing
machine.
Fig. 5. Degradation of composite inal magnification X17.2.)
Fig. 3. Cohesive failure fication X13.‘)
of luting
agent. (Original
magni-
Mass.) testing machine with a cross-head speed of 0.5 cm/ min and a 500 kg load cell was used. The tensile load at failure was used as the measure of the adhesive bond strength. A stereomicroscope (A. 0. Scientific Instruments, Warner-Lambert, Buffalo, N.Y.) was used to determine if the failures were adhesive or cohesive. For the rebond portion of the study, group I had the composite resin burned off in a casting oven (Accu-Therm 250, J. F. Jelenko Co.) at 600’ C for 10 minutes, as recommended by Thompson and Livaditis.4 The specimens were sandblasted with 50 pm Ale03 for 15 seconds, reelectro-
290
resin luting agent. (Orig-
etched, and then rebonded with Comspan resin. Groups II and III were sandblasted with A1203 for 15 seconds per sample, cleaned in double distilled water for 10 minutes in an ultrasonic cleaner, and then rebonded with the respective cements. The samples were tested for failure in tension as previously described. The raw data were statistically analyzed with a dependent t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS The means, standard deviations, range, standard error of the mean, and the coefficients of variation for all three groups are listed in Table I. The dependent t test showed a significant difference at the 0.01 level of confidence between bond versus rebond strength for all three groups (Table II).
MARCH
1992
VOLUME
07
NUMBER
3
BONDIREBOND
STRENGTHS
OF LUTING
AGENTS
I. Means, range, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and coefficient of variation for bond and rebond strengths for three luting agents in megapascals (MPa)
Table
Mean
Range
S.D.
S.E.M.
C.V.
10 10
44.6 33.6
34.4-56.7 12.4-42.1
7.9 9.4
2.5 3.0
11.7 28.3
10 10
37.2 31.1
23.2-45.2 19.2-42.1
5.9 6.5
1.9 2.0
15.8 20.8
10
54.3
42.5-66.0
8.3
2.6
15.3
10
39.4
17.4-54.8
11.6
3.7
29.6
No.
Comspan Bond Rebond Super-bond Bond Rebond Panavia Bond Rebond
The ANOVA showed a difference between the means of the bond strength group (Table III) at the 0.05 confidence level. No difference was found between the means of the rebond strength groups, as shown in Table IV, at the 0.05 confidence level. An ANOVA of the differences between the three luting agents showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level (Table V). Evaluation and analysis of the tested specimens with the stereomicroscope showed that Panavia cement exhibited cohesive failures at the initial bond (48 hours) and adhesive failures at the rebond (48 hours). Super-bond C & B and Comspan cements exhibited adhesive failures for both the bond and rebond tests. A cohesive failure is depicted in Fig. 3 and an adhesive failure is shown in Fig. 4. Adhesive and cohesive failures are summarized in Table VI. DISCUSSION This study shows clinical relevance in resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. Other studies5-l4 have shown an 18% to 30% debond rate with these restorations. If resin-bonded prostheses can be rebonded, it is of clinical importance to know if the new adhesive luting agents rebond as well the second time as they did originally. The electroetch procedure was used as a control, since this mode of attachment has been popular for many years. Panavia resin showed the highest initial mean bond strength (54.3 MPa), followed by Comspan and Superbond C & B resins, respectively (Table III). All the mean bond strengths were three to four times the strength of the composite resin-enamel interface, so they should be of adequate strength for resin-bonded prostheses. Rebond strengths are compared in Table IV. Panavia resin demonstrated the highest metal composite strength (39.4 MPa), but there was no statistically significant difference between the three luting agents. The differences in bond versus rebond strengths (Table II) are statistically different at the 0.01 level of significance for Comspan, Super-bond C & B, and Panavia, materials, respectively. This finding may not be of clinical significance, since the rebond strengths continued to be two to
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
II. Differences in bond versus rebond strength in megapascals (MPa) within each of three luting agents
Table
Mean difference
Comspan Super-bond Panavia *Dependent
11.0 6.0 15.0
S.D.
t*
PR>t
10.4 5.3
3.36 3.61
0.0084 0.0056
15.0
3.17
0.0114
t test.
III. Bond strengths of three luting agents in megapascals (MPa)
Table
No.
Panavia Comspan Super-bond
10 10 10
Means with different letters are different (Duncan’s multiple range test).
Mean 54.3 44.6 37.2
Duncan grouping A B C
at the 0.05 level of significance
three times the strength of the resin-enamel interface. This finding agrees with the work of Mee et a1.,i5 which showed that strengths of bonded versus rebonded electroetched metal samples were significantly different. Naifeh et a1.,16 using a bovine tooth-resin-etched-metal system, determined that rebond strengths were significantly lower than initial bond strengths at the 0.05 level for all experimental groups tested. However, Jassem et a1.,17using extracted human central incisors and orthodontic bands, showed no significant difference in bond versus rebond tensile or shear strengths. These two studies, in comparison with this study, introduced a second interface (namely the tooth), so that more variables need to be controlled. The differences in loss of bond strength between Panavia, Super-bond C & B, and Comspan materials were not significantly different (Table V). This would indicate that whatever the variable was that accounted for the loss of bond strength from that of the initial bond affected all bonding systems equally. The only variable that was not
291
WILLIAMS,
IV. Rebond strengths megapascals (MPa)
Table
of three luting agents in DUllCSUl Meall
No.
Panavia Comspan Super-bond
10 10 10
39.4
33.6 31.1
Means with the same letter are not different (Duncan’s multiple range test).
grouping A A A
at the 0.05 level of significance
REFERENCES
2.
No.
Mean
10 10 10
15.0 11.0 f6.0
Means with the same letter are not different (Duncan’s multiple range test).
Duncan grouping
3. 4.
A
5.
A A
6.
at the 0.05 level of significance
I. 8. 9.
Table
VI.
Type of bonding failure 10.
Bond Rebond
AQUILINO
2. The loss of bond strength may not be of clinical significance as all three luting agents have rebond strengths that are approximately three times the composite-enamel bond strength. 3. Panavia resin rebond specimens showed a degradation of the bond. Adhesive failures were the most common type observed.
V.
Panavia Comspan Super-bond
AND
1. Watanabe
Differences in bond strength between three luting agents in megapascals (MPa)
Table
DIAZ-ARNOLD,
Comspan
Super-bond
Adhesive Adhesive
Adhesive Adhesive
Panavia Cohesive Adhesive
tested on the rebond group was the air firing (oxidizing) procedure, as this is something that would be done initially before the addition of the porcelain. Both Comspan and Super-bond C & B materials showed a majority of adhesive failures at both the initial bond and rebond testing. Initial Panavia resin bonds were all cohesive failures. Panavia resin rebond specimens had mostly adhesive failures and a beginning degradation of the composite bond (Fig. 5) became apparent (as visualized with the stereomicroscope). A previous study by usls also showed a degradation of the Panavia resin bond after 30 days’ storage and after 1080 cycles of thermocycling. This finding differs from the results of the study of Watanabe et al.,l in which no destruction of the Panavia resin bond (cohesive failure) was detected following 24 hours’ to 30 days’ storage in water. The difference could be caused by the control of film thickness and the effects of thermocycling, which were done in this study.
F, Powers JM, Lorey RE. In vitro bonding of prosthodontic adhesives to dental alloys. J Dent Res 1988;67:479-83. Thompson VP, Livaditis GJ, DelCastillo E. Resin bond to electrolytically etched nonprecious alloys for resin bonded prostheses [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1981;60:377. Omura I, Yamauche J, Harada I, Wada T. Adhesive and mechanical properties of a new dental adhesive [Abstract]. J Dent Res 19M;63:233. Thompson VP, Livaditis GJ. Etched casting acid etch composite bonded posterior bridges. J Pediatr Dent 1982;4:38-43. Kuhlke KL, Drennon DC. An alternative to the anterior single tooth removable partial denture. J Int Assoc Dent Child 197’7;8:11-5. Denehy GE, Howe DF. A conservative approach to the missing anterior tooth. Quintessence Int 1979;7:23-9. Shaw MJ, Tay WM. Clinical performance of resin-bonded cast metal bridges (Rochette bridges). Br Dent J 1982;152:378-80. Livaditis GJ, Thompson VP. Etched castings: an improved retentive mechanism for resin-bonded retainers. J PROSTHET DENT 1982;47:52-8. Bergendal B, Hallonsten AL, Kock G, Ludvigsson N, Olgart K. Composite retained onlay bridges. Swed Dent J 1983;7:217-25. Eshleman JR, Moon PC, Barnes RF. Clinical evaluation of cast metal resin-bonded anterior fixed partial dentures. J PROSTHET DENT 1984;
51:761-4. 11. Ekstrand
K. Erfarenheter av 120 kompositretinerade palaggsbroar. Tandlaktidn 1984;76:987-93. 12. Williams VD, Thayer KE, Denehy GE, Bayer DB. Cast metal, resin bonded prostheses: a ten year retrospective study. J PHOSTHET DENT 1989;61:436-41. 13. van der Veen H, Bronsdijk
14. 15. 16.
17.
18.
B, van de Poe1 F. Clinical evaluation of resin bonded bridges with perforated retainers; six year results. Quintessence Dent Techniques 1987;11:51-6. Thompson VP, Wood M. Etched casting bonded retainer recalls: results at 3-5 years [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1986;65:311. Mee TR, Skeeters TM, Hinton T. The tensile strength of rebonded resin-bonded bridges [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1985,64:362. Naifeh D, Wendt SL Jr, Dormois LD, McKnight JP. A laboratory evalnation of rebond strengths of solid retainers of the acid-etched fixed partial denture. J PROSTHET DENT 1988;59:583-7. Jassem HA, Retief DH, Jamison HC. Tensile and shear strengths of bonded and rebonded orthodontic attachments [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1981;60:626. Diaz-Arnold AM, Williams VD, Aquiline SA. Tensile strengths of luting agents for adhesive fixed partial dentures. lnt J Prosthodont 1989;2:115-22.
Reprint
requests
to:
DR. VINCENT D. WILLIAMS COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 52242
CONCLUSIONS 1. Bond versus rebond strengths for all three luting agents are significantly less at the 0.01 confidence level.
292
MARCH
1992
VOLUME
67
NUMBER
3
