To evaluate the abilities of the DCB and the NTP test for measuring adherence of an adhesive joint between a resin and a metal interface.
METHODS:
Two-hundred stainless steel metal beams (diam. ) were cast and treated by the following methods: (1) sandblasting with aluminum oxide, followed by treatment with (2) the Rocatec system or (3) the Alloy primer. Superbond and Panavia F 2.0 were used as adhesives. The fracture energy () and fracture toughness () of two adhesives were compared by two-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS:
With the DCB test, Superbond was more effective than Panavia, regardless of the surface treatment and conditions of crack propagation. The overall effectiveness of the treatments was in the following order: sandblasting + Rocatec > sandblasting alone > sandblasting + Alloy primer. The adherence energy in an aqueous medium was lower than that in air. With the NTP test, similar performances were obtained with three surface treatments. However, the potential of Rocatec seemed slightly higher.
CONCLUSIONS:
The DCB and NTP tests provide independent measures of the inherent value of an adhesive. Rocatec appeared to provide greater resistance of the bonded joints in an aqueous environment.
TanoueN.NaganoK.SawaseT. and MatsumuraH., A nine-year clinical case study of a resin-bonded fixed partial denture seated on the maxillary anterior teeth, J. Prosthodont. Res.54 (2010), 143–146.
2.
MairL. and PadipatvuthikulP., Variables related to materials and preparing for bond strength testing irrespective of the test protocol, Dent. Mater.26 (2010), e17–e23.
3.
ShinyaA.YokoyamaD.LassilaL.V.ShinyaA. and VallittuP.K., Three-dimensional finite element analysis of metal and FRC adhesive fixed dental prostheses, J. Adhes. Dent.10 (2008), 365–371.
4.
GoodacreC.J.BernalG.RungcharassaengK. and KanJ.Y., Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics, J. Prosthet. Dent.90 (2003), 31–41.
5.
De MunckJ.Van LanduytK.PeumansM.PoitevinA.LambrechtsP.BraemM.et al., A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results, J. Dent. Res.84 (2005), 118–132.
6.
Neves AdeA., Influence of notch geometry and interface on stress concentration and distribution in micro-tensile bond strength specimens, J. Dent.36 (2008), 808–815.
7.
Neves AdeA.CoutinhoE.CardosoM.V.JaecquesS.LambrechtsP.SlotenJ.V.et al., Influence of joint component mechanical properties and adhesive layer thickness on stress distribution in micro-tensile bond strength specimens, Dent. Mater.25 (2009), 4–12.
8.
BetamarN.CardewG. and Van NoortR., Influence of specimen designs on the microtensile bond strength to dentin, J. Adhes. Dent.9 (2007), 159–168.
9.
PlacidoE.MeiraJ.B.LimaR.G.MuenchA.de SouzaR.M. and BallesterR.Y., Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: A finite element stress analysis, Dent. Mater.23 (2007), 1086–1092.
10.
HaraA.T.PimentaL.A. and RodriguesA.L.Jr., Influence of cross-head speed on resin-dentin shear bond strength, Dent. Mater.17 (2001), 165–169.
11.
BragaR.R.MeiraJ.B.BoaroL.C. and XavierT.A., Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “macro” test methods, Dent Mater.26 (2010), e38–e49.
12.
CognardJ., The mechanisms of the wedge test, J. Adhesion20 (1986), 1–13.
13.
AsmussenE.AttalP.J. and DegrangeM., Adherence of resin-based luting agents assessed by the energy of fracture, Acta Odontol. Scand.51 (1993), 235–240.
14.
BubseyR.T.MunzD.PierceW.S. and ShannonJ.L., Compliance calibration of the short rod chevron-notch specimen for fracture toughness testing of British materials, Int. J. Fracture18 (1982), 125–133.
15.
RuseN.D.TroczynskiT.MacEnteeM.I. and FeduikD., Novel fracture toughness test using a notchless triangular prism (NTP) specimen, J. Biomed. Mater. Res.31 (1996), 457–463.
16.
De SouzaJ.A.GoutianosS.SkovgaardM. and SorensenB.F., Fracture resistance curves and toughening mechanism in polymer based dental composites, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.4 (2011), 558–571.
17.
MoraisJ.J.de MouraM.F.PereiraF.A.XavierJ.DouradoN.DiasM.I.et al., The double cantilever beam test applied to mode I fracture characterization of cortical bone tissue, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.3 (2010), 446–453.
18.
DegrangeM.CharrierJ.L.AttalJ.P. and AsmussenE., Bonding of luting materials for resin-bonded bridges: Clinical relevance of in vitro tests, J. Dent.22(Suppl. 1) (1994), S28–S32.
DongX.D. and RuseN.D., Fatigue crack propagation path across the dentinoenamel junction complex in human teeth, J. Biomed. Mater. Res.66A(1) (2003), 103–109.
21.
FarC. and RuseN.D., Effect of bleaching on fracture toughness of composite-dentin bonds, J. Adhes. Dent.5(3) (2003), 175–182.
MaugisD. and BarquinM., Fracture mechanics and the adherence of viscoelastic bodies, J. Phys. D: Alle Phys.11 (1978), 1989–2023.
24.
OrfeoS. and GiuseppeP., Residual stresses and R-curve behavior of AlN/Mo composite, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc.21 (2001), 269–275.
25.
Della BonaA. and van NoortR., Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic, J. Dent. Res.74(9) (1995), 1591–1596.
26.
TjandrawinataR.IrieM. and SuzukiK., Twenty-four hour flexural and shear bond strengths of flowable light-cured composites: A comparison analysis using Weibull statistics, Dent. Mater. J.26(4) (2007), 589–597.
27.
BouterD., Approche in vitro et in vivo de la tenue des joint métalliques collés en odontologie, Thesis, University Paris V, 1996.
28.
BouterD., Etude des interrelations rugosité, adhesion, adherence: application au collage du titane. Thèse: Diplôme d’études approfondies, Biomatériaux, Paris V, 1993.
29.
Van LanduytK.L.SnauwaertJ.De MunckJ.PeumansM.YoshidaY.PoitevinA.et al., Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives, Biomaterials28 (2007), 3757–3785.
30.
AsmussenE.AttalJ.P. and DegrangeM., Adherence of resin-based luting agents assessed by the energy of fracture, Acta Odontol. Scand.51 (1993), 235–240.
31.
OhnoH.EndoK. and HashimotoM., New mechanical retention method for resin and gold alloy bonding, Dent. Mater.20(4) (2004), 330–337.
32.
YoshidaY.NagakaneK.FukudaR.NakayamaY.OkazakiM.ShintaniH.et al., Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers, J. Dent. Res.83 (2004), 454–458.
33.
NishiyamaN.SuzukiK.YoshidaH.TeshimaH. and NemotoK., Hydrolytic stability of methacrylamide in acidic aqueous solution, Biomaterials25 (2004), 965–969.
34.
SalzU.ZimmermannJ.ZeunerF. and MosznerN., Hydrolytic stability of self-etching adhesive systems, J. Adhes. Dent.7(2) (2005), 107–116.
35.
TayF.R.PashleyD.H.Garcia-GodoyF. and YiuC.K., Single-step self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence, Am. J. Dent.17 (2004), 315–322.
36.
KoizumiH.FuruchiM.TanoueN.YanagidaH.YoneyamaT. and MatsumuraH., Bond strength to primed Ti–6Al–7Nb alloy of two acrylic resin adhesives, Dent. Mater. J.25(2) (2006), 286–290.
37.
MoulinP.DegrangeM. and PicardB., Influence of surface treatment on adherence energy of alloys used in bonded prosthetics, J. Oral. Rehabil.26 (1999), 413–421.
38.
CognardJ., Science et Technique du Collage, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes Edit, Lausanme, 2000.
39.
ZhangC. and DegrangeM., Shear bond strengths of self-adhesive luting resins fixing dentine to different restorative materials, J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed.21 (2010), 593–608.
40.
MoulinP.PicardB. and DegrangeM., Water resistance of resin-bonded joints with time related to alloy surface treatment, J. Dent.27 (1999), 79–87.
41.
SoderholmK.J., Review of the fracture toughness approach, Dent. Mater.26(2) (2010), e63–e77.
