Dental Materials

Bond strength of two resin cements

to titanium after different
surface conditioning methods
Mutlu Ozcan, DMD, PhD  Q Luiz Felipe Valandro, DDS, MSD, PhD

This study evaluated the bond strength of two resin cements
(Panavia F and Super Bond) to titanium after various surface
conditioning techniques. The cements were applied using
polyethylene tubes. After thermocycling, the specimens were
tested in a universal testing machine for shear bond strength.
Panavia F demonstrated significantly higher bond strength
values than Super Bond. Of the conditioning techniques,
Al2O3 +Silane+Sinfony and Silano Pen+AP demonstrated
significantly lower bond strength values than Al2O3 +Cesead II
Opaque Primer and 110 µm SiOx +Silane. The combination of
Panavia and 110 µm SiOx +Silane, Al2O3 +AP, or Al2O3 +Cesead II,
and the combination of Super Bond and 110 µm SiOx +Silane or
Al2O3 +Cesead II, can be recommended for improving the bond
strength of resin cement to titanium.
Received: October 4, 2010
Final revisions: February 1, 2011
Accepted: May 10, 2011

T
itanium alloys are increasingly
used for fabrication of fixed
partial dentures, especially
because of the development of new
generations of casting machines and
the advantages of titanium alloys
compared to non-noble alloys,
such as biocompatibility, resistance
to corrosion, and lightweight and
mechanical properties.1 However,
a significant disadvantage of these
alloys is the insufficient bond
between them and resin cements.2
Several evaluations of the bond
strength of different noble and
non-noble alloys to resin cements
after application of different surface
treatments have been published
recently.3-5 Recent surface treatments
for metallic alloys are divided into
two categories: surface modification
by deposition of a thin layer of
organic, inorganic, metallic, or resin
components on the alloy surface, and
utilization of sulfur derivative mono-
mers for achievement of a direct
chemical bond between the elements
on the metallic alloy surface and the
resin components of cements.6
The treatments designed for
surface modification include
blasting with aluminum oxide or
silica-modified aluminum oxide
particles. Blasting with aluminum
oxide aims to increase the contact
surface between the alloy and
the resin cements and reduce the
surface energy, thereby improving
surface wettability.7 Utilization of
tribochemical treatments, such as
the Rocatec (3M ESPE), CoJet (3M
ESPE), and Silicoater MD (Heraeus
Dental North America) systems,
includes blasting with silica-mod-
ified zinc oxide particles followed
by the application of silane. The
bifunctional molecules present in
silanes chemically bond the silica
layer remaining on the metallic sur-
face after blasting (silanol group) to
the monomers of resin cements.8,9
Different compositions of metal
primers have been introduced to
the market, with the goal of using
a simplified procedure to achieve a
chemical bond between the metallic
surface and resin components such
as resin cements, covering resins,
and composite resins employed for
intraoral repair.6
Initially, Kojima et al synthesized
the monomer 6-(4-vinylbenzyl-n-
propyl) amino-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-di-
thiol (VBATDT) and reported a
strong bond between a noble metal-
lic alloy and a resin composite by
methyl methacrylate-tri-n-butylbo-
rane (MMA-TBB) using this deriva-
tive.10 Other metal primers with
different compositions have been
introduced, such as the Alloy Primer
(Kuraray America, Inc.), containing
10-methacryloyloxydecyl hydrogen
phosphate (MDP) associated to
VBATDT; the V-Primer (Sun Medi-
cal), containing VBATDT; and the
Cesead II Opaque Primer, contain-
ing MDP. Even though the results of
some studies appear to be dependent
on the composition of alloys, metal
primers, and cements or resins
employed, the metal primers usually
increase the bond strength between
metallic alloys and resin cements.11-14
Several studies have evaluated
the long-term storage in water
or the impact of thermocycling

e6 January/February 2012 General Dentistry www.agd.org

 Table 1. Materials used in the study.

Material Manufacturer Component

Titanium Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy GC America Inc. Ti 86.5%, Al 6.0%, Nb 7.0%, other 0.5%
Alloy Primer Kuraray America, Inc. 10- methacryloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate 6 amino-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithione in acetone
V-Primer Sun Medical VBATDT in acetone
ESPE-Sil 3M ESPE MPS in ethanol
Visio Bond 3M ESPE Bisacrylate, aminodiol methacrylate, camphorquinone, benzyl dimethyl ketale, stabilizers
Cesead II Opaque Primer Kuraray America, Inc. 10-methacryloyloxydecoxyphosphoric acid, methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate
Bredent Haft Bredent GmbH & Co. MPS in ethanol
Panavia F Kuraray America, Inc. Hydrophobic aromatic dimethacrylate, hydrophobic aliphatic dimethacrylate, MDP, filler, BPO,
hydrophobic dimethacrilate, filler, DEPT, sodium aromatic sulfinate
Super Bond (C&B) Sun Medical 4-META, TBB initiator, MMA
VBATDT= 6-(4-vinylbenzyl-n-propyl) amino-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithiol; MPS=3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane; MDP=10-methacryloyloxydecyl hydrogen
phosphate; BPO=dibenzoyl peroxide; DEPT=N,N-di(2-hydroxyethyl) p-toluidine; 4-META=4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitc anhydride; TBB=tri-n-butylborane;
MMA=methyl methacrylate.

on the bond strength at the resin surface treatments combined to Group 1

cement-metal interface. The ther-
mal stress in the oral cavity can
influence the bond strength in two
different ways: Either the differ-
ence in the coefficient of thermal
expansion between resin cement
and metallic alloy is directly related
to the propagation of cracks at the
adhesive interface, or the changing
gap dimensions are associated with
gap volume changes, which pump
pathogenic oral fluids in and out of
the gaps.6 Both effects could reduce
the bond strength and impair the
clinical longevity of the restoration.
Several studies have observed
reduced bond strength between
resin cements and metallic alloys
after storage or thermocycling, dem-
onstrating the difficulty in achieving
satisfactory bonding in the long
term.1,3,15 Nevertheless, information
regarding the comparison of differ-
ent surface treatments on titanium
alloys is limited, especially with
respect to long-term aging.
The current study evaluated the
bond strength of two resin cements
to a titanium alloy after different
their coupling agents. The null
hypotheses tested by the current
study are that the resin cements pro-
vide similar bond strength and that
the different surface treatments pro-
vide similar bond strength between
resin cements and titanium.
Materials and methods
Experimental design
This study was designed as an 8x2
factorial: six titanium surface con-
ditionings and two resin cements,
comprising 16 testing groups.
Surface conditioning
One hundred sixty different speci-
mens, each with a thickness of 3.5
mm and a diameter of 4.6 mm,
were cut from commercially pure
titanium. All specimens were pol-
ished with 1200-grit silicon carbide
paper, ultrasonically cleaned in 96%
isopropanol for three minutes, and
air-dried for three minutes.
The materials investigated in this
study are listed in Table 1. Eight dif-
ferent surface conditioning methods
were used (n = 20).
Specimens were grit-blasted from
a distance of 10 mm with 50 µm
aluminum oxide (Al2O3) at 0.25
MPa pressure for 10 seconds, ultra-
sonically cleaned in distillated water
for three minutes, and air-dried for
three minutes. Alloy Primer was
applied in a thin coat to the grit-
blasted alloy surface and left to dry
naturally for 20 seconds.
Group 2
Specimens were grit-blasted with 50
µm Al2O3, the same as in Group 1.
V-Primer was applied in a thin coat
to the grit-blasted alloy surface and
left to dry naturally for 20 seconds.
Group 3
Specimens were grit-blasted with 30
µm particle-sized alumina and sur-
face-modified with colloidal silicon
dioxide. The treatment was carried
out using an intraoral device at 0.25
MPa pressure for 10 seconds from a
distance of 10 mm. ESPE-Sil silane
was applied in a thin coat to the
grit-blasted alloy surface and left to
dry for five minutes. Sinfony Visio

www.agd.org General Dentistry January/February 2012 e7

Dental Materials Bond strength of resin cements to titanium
Bond was applied in a thin coat
and photocured using a Demetron
unit for 50 seconds at 500 mW/cm2
(Kerr Corporation).
Group 4
Specimens were grit-blasted with 50
µm Al2O3, the same as in Group 1.
ESPE-Sil silane and Sinfony Visio
Bond were applied, the same as in
Group 3.
Group 5
Specimens were grit-blasted with
50 µm Al2O3, the same as in Group
1. Cesead II Opaque Primer was
applied in a thin coat to the grit-
blasted alloy surface and left to dry
naturally for 20 seconds.
Group 6
A silica layer was deposited and
surface-heated with a Silano Pen
(Bredent GmbH & Co.) for two
seconds from a distance of 10 mm.
Alloy primer was applied, the same
as in Group 1.
Group 7
Specimens were grit-blasted with
110 µm particle-sized alumina and
surface-modified with colloidal
silicon dioxide. The treatment was
carried out using a Roctector unit
at 0.25 MPa pressure for 10 seconds
from a distance of 10 mm. A silane
coupling agent was applied in a thin
coat to the grit-blasted alloy surface
and left to dry for five minutes.
Group 8
Specimens were grit-blasted with 50
µm Al2O3, the same as in Group 1.
The surface was heated with a Silano
Pen, and Bredent Haft (Bredent
GmbH & Co.) was applied in a thin
coat and photocured for 50 seconds.
Bonding procedures
Two different bonding procedures
were used on each of eight surface
e8 January/February 2012 General Dentistry
Chart 1. Shear bond strength of Panavia F cement.
40
35
30
25
MPa
20
15
10
5
0
Al2O3 + Al2O3 + SiOx + Al2O3 +
Alloy V-Primer Silane Silane
Primer Sinfony Sinfony
Pretreatment
conditioning areas (n = 10), accord-
ing to the resin cement (Panavia F or
SuperBond). For both resin cements,
a constant amount of material was
used: One squeezed portion was
dispensed onto a mixing pad, then
spread and mixed with a plastic spat-
ula for 10 seconds prior to transfer
via the spatula to the polyethylene
mold. The cements were applied to
polyethylene molds (3.5 mm diam-
eter and 5.5 mm length) as stubs.
For Panavia F, the mold was
placed in the metal surface, excess
cement was removed with the
proper instruments, specimens were
photocured for 40 seconds in each
margin, and an oxygen inhibitor
(Oxyguard, Kuraray America, Inc.)
was applied and allowed to react
for five minutes. For SuperBond,
the mold was placed in the metal
surface, excess cement was removed
with proper instruments, and speci-
mens were allowed to react for eight
minutes. The molds were gently
removed by pressing the cured resin
www.agd.org
Al2O3 + Silano Pen Rocatec Al2O3+
Cesead II +Alloy +Silane Silano Pen
Opaque Primer
Primer
stub to the substrate. The surface
conditioning and bonding were
conducted by the same operator.
Sample aging and shear
bond testing
Specimens were subjected to
thermocycling for 6,000 cycles at
temperatures alternating between
5$C and 55$C with a standard
immersion time of 30 seconds
(Ethik Technology), followed by
30 days of immersion in distilled
water at 37$C. The shear bond test
for the stubs was carried out using a
DL 2000 universal testing machine
(EMIC Ltd.) using a crosshead
speed of 1 mm mm-1.
Statistical analysis of the results
and failure mode analysis
The shear bond data were statistically
analyzed using a two-way ANOVA
(SPSS for Windows Version 12.01,
IBM). The dependent variable, shear
bond strength, was explained by the
two independent variables (surface
 Chart 2. Shear bond strength of Super Bond cement.
25
20
15
MPa
10
5 values for Panavia F compared to
0 via F compared to C&B MetaBond
Al2O3 + Al2O3 + SiOx + Al2O3 +
Alloy V-Primer Silane Silane
Primer Sinfony Sinfony
Pretreatment
conditioning and cement). Multiple
comparisons were performed using
a Tukey test. Statistical significance
was set at _ = 0.05.
Debonded metal surfaces were
observed using an optical micro-
scope at 30X magnification, and the
location of each failure mode was
recorded. The failure modes were
categorized as adhesive failure at the
metal-resin cement interface, cohe-
sive failure within resin cement, or
complex adhesive/cohesive failure.
Results
The results of the two-way ANOVA
showed that the cement factor was
significant (P < 0.05). Panavia F
(11.03 ± 8.55 MPa) presented sig-
nificantly higher shear bond strength
values than Super Bond (6.38 ±
5.35 MPa), regardless of the surface
conditioning method. The titanium
surface conditioning factor was sta-
tistically significant (P < 0.05).
Charts 1 and 2 illustrate bond
strength results. Al2O3+Silane+
Al2O3 + Silano Pen Rocatec Al2O3+
Cesead II +Alloy +Silane Silano Pen
Opaque Primer
Primer
Sinfony (5.21 ± 4.4 MPa) and Silano
Pen+AP (0.05 ± 0.23 MPa) demon-
strated significantly lower values
when compared with Al2O3+Cesead
II Opaque Primer (11.74 ± 5.45
MPa) and SiOx+Silane (16.29 ± 8.48
MPa).
Discussion
The current study evaluated the
bond strength between a titanium
alloy and the resin cements Panavia
F 2.0 (MDP) and Super Bond
(4-META/MMA-TBB). Different
titanium alloys have been evaluated,
as has pure titanium. Studies com-
paring the bond strength between
different alloys and resin cements
demonstrate the lack of difference in
bond strength between them.1,3
Regardless of the surface treat-
ment employed, Panavia F exhibited
higher bond strength values
compared to Super Bond; this
rejects the first null hypothesis. The
superiority of Panavia F is related to
its composition because in addition
www.agd.org General Dentistry
to containing MDP, it is highly
filled and cross-linked with strong
Bis-GMA, making it less affected by
thermocycling.16,17
Different results are found when
Panavia F is compared with other
resin cements. Yoshida et al and
Yoshida et al observed similar
outcomes when both cements
were tested after different surface
treatments on a silver-palladium
alloy or a Co-Cr alloy.12,14 Taira et
al observed lower bond strength
Super Bond, whereas Watanabe et
al revealed the superiority of Pana-
after 50,000 thermal cycles.1,3 In a
study by Schneider et al, the resin
cements Rely X ARC and Panavia F
did not present differences in their
bond strength to a titanium alloy;
however, the failure mode of Pana-
via F was cohesive in more than
50% of the area of specimens, while
Rely X exhibited a predominance
of adhesive failures.18 According
to the authors, the high wettabil-
ity of the cement, due to MDP
and VBATDT, provides a larger
contact surface between Panavia F
and titanium.
Several studies have evaluated
the bond strength between metallic
alloys and resin materials, such
as resin cements, covering com-
posite resins, or composite resins
for repair, associated with metal
primers of different compositions.
Even though the studies have
employed different alloys, differ-
ent metal primers, and different
mechanical surface treatments
of alloys and aging, and many
results depend on the interaction
among these factors, several studies
have exhibited positive outcomes
with utilization of these primers,
especially after aging of specimens,
compared to groups without the
presence of primers.2-6,11,19
January/February 2012 e9
Dental Materials Bond strength of resin cements to titanium
In the present study, for Panavia
F, the combination of blasting with
aluminum oxide and Alloy primer
or Cesead II Opaque Primer, both
of which contain MDP, or blasting
with the Rocatec system provided
higher bond strength values com-
pared with the other groups after
thermocycling. On the other hand,
for Super Bond as well as for the
Rocatec system, the association of
blasting with aluminum oxide and
Cesead II Opaque Primer provided
higher bond strength values; this
rejects the second null hypothesis.
The metal primer containing
VBATDT (V-Primer) exhibited
lower values compared with those
containing MDP; moreover, for
Super Bond, the association of
VBATDT with MDP (Alloy
Primer) impaired the bond strength
to titanium. It is believed that metal
primers containing VBTDT present
better results when employed in
noble alloys because they present a
higher affinity to some elements of
these alloys, such as Au, Pd, and Ag,
as compared with basic alloys.3,10
According to Watanabe et al, the
mercapto group, derived from the
compound present in V-Primer,
bonds chemically to noble metals.5
Even though studies reveal that the
4-META monomer present in the
composition of Super Bond enhances
the bonding between metallic alloys
and the resin compound, several
authors confirm the hypothesis that
MDP is superior to 4-META with
regard to the surface modification of
titanium for bonding.3,4,19
Taira et al observed that primer/
Super Bond was inferior to MDP/
Super Bond.3 On the other hand,
Taira et al observed that, when a
metal primer containing MDP
was applied to Panavia F, the bond
strength was superior to that of
Panavia F without the primer, even
though the cement includes MDP
e10 January/February 2012 General Dentistry
in its composition, encouraging the
association of these metal primers
with the aforementioned cement.4
According to the authors, the
inclusion of MDP increases the
concentration of free phosphate at
the resin-metal interface, reducing
the weakening action of MDP by
amine, dissolved within the cement,
at the adhesive interface. Even
though Taira et al did not observe
differences in the bond strength
between titanium and different resin
cements associated with metal prim-
ers (4-META, MDP, and MEPS)
before thermocycling, titanium
treated with a phosphoric acid deri-
vate (MDP) and a thiophosphoric
acid derivate (MEPS) exhibited
higher bond strength after thermo-
cycling, regardless of the cement
employed.4 As in the present study,
the authors observed increased bond
strength when Super Bond was asso-
ciated with Cesead Opaque Primer.
The same results were observed
by Taira et al when Panavia F and
Super Bond were employed after
utilization of different primers.20
Titanium alloys are considered
basic alloys, and the surface of these
alloys is covered with a passive layer
of metallic oxides, with the hydro-
philic group in the atmospheric
environment. The MDP monomer,
present in Alloy Primer and Cesead
II Opaque Primer, interacts with
the passive layer of titanium,
including bond to hydrogen,
covalent bond, and van der Waals
forces.1,3 According to Ohno et al,
the interaction between the acids of
monomers and the OH- groups of
the surface oxide layer depends on
the isoelectric metallic oxide points
and the constant acid dissociation
of monomers.21
Different studies employing
infrared reflection absorption
spectroscopy or X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy have demonstrated
www.agd.org
absorption of MDP on the silver
surface or by the titanium alloy,
respectively.22,23 According to
Tsuchimoto et al, the absorption
of MDP on the titanium surface is
demonstrated by the detection of
phosphate, even after an ultrasonic
bath in ethanol for 20 minutes.23
Both systems employed in this
study, namely Rocatec and CoJet,
are based on tribochemical treat-
ment. The tribochemical pretreat-
ment by use of silica coating yields
higher bond strength values in
ceramic and metal repairs; their
indication is well-documented in
the literature.7,9,24,25 The Rocatec and
CoJet systems include blasting with
110-+m and 30-+m silica-modified
Al2O3 (CoJet-Sand), respectively;
this leads to the deposition of
a molecular coating of alumina
covered with silicic acid. Blasting
increased the surface area of alloy
surfaces, expanded the energy of
alloy surfaces, and increased the
surface activity. Matinlinna et al
observed the presence of 41% silica
on the titanium surface after blast-
ing with CoJet.26
The surface is then covered with
silane, making it more reactive.8,9,27
Silanes are molecules with two
functional groups: silanol, which
adheres to the silica of inorganic
particles on the metallic surface;
and organofunctional, which bonds
to the methacrylate in the resin
cement. These functional groups
allow for the establishment of a
covalent bond between monomers
of the adhesive system and inor-
ganic particles of the composite
resin. Moreover, the silane also
increases the wettability of the
adhesive system, which infiltrates
more easily in the irregularities
produced by blasting.8,9,27
Schneider et al compared the
utilization of a silane primer (3M
ESPE) and the metal primer
Alloy Primer in the bond strength
between a titanium alloy and the
resin cements Rely X ARC (3M
ESPE) and Panavia F, and observed
no difference between the two
compounds or the two cements
employed.18 According to the
authors, silicon, which is the main
component of silane agents, has a
high affinity with the metallic ions
of the surface oxide layer of tita-
nium, producing a chemical bond
similar to that of the combination
of MDP and Panavia F.
The better results observed for the
Rocatec system compared to CoJet
are likely related to particle size.
The titanium surface blasted with
110-µm particles should increase
the surface roughness, increasing
the bond between the cement and
the metallic surface. Mukai et al
also observed higher bond strength
between an Ag-Pd alloy or a Ni-Cr
alloy and a composite resin after
blasting with 250-µm particles
compared to 37-µm particles.28 In
a study by Behr et al, the bonding
of composite resin to the titanium
surface was not different after
utilization of a metal primer (Metal
Primer II) or the Rocatec system
after 6,000 thermal cycles.29
Many authors state that the
micromechanical retention
achieved by surface blasting is the
main factor in charge of bonding
of the resin cement to the titanium
surface, reducing the differences
among surface treatments and
cements employed in the different
studies.18 Suese et al reported an
increase in the bond strength to
adhesive resin after achieving a
rough surface, with the presence of
pores produced by blasting.30
The Silano Pen includes silica
deposition on the metallic surface
by the utilization of heat, associ-
ated with Bredent Haft, a silane
supplied with the system. Silica
deposition without previous blast-
ing did not provide better bond
strength values; however, when
associated with blasting with alu-
minum oxide, it presented favor-
able results for Super Bond.
Even though groups not submit-
ted to thermocycling, used as a
control, were not reproduced in
the present study, White and Gol-
shanara stated that a small number
of cycles tends to increase the bond
strength, since the heat improves
curing; however, additional cycles
seem to create a logarithmic ten-
dency in which a 10-fold increase
in the number of cycles leads to an
approximate loss of 2 MPa, even
though some cements, including
Panavia F, present smaller reduc-
tions in bond strength.16
The association of thermocycling
in laboratory studies is important,
since the ranking of materials
investigated could be changed con-
siderably.16 However, bond strength
is reduced by several additional
factors, including mechanical force
during mastication, hydrolysis, and
aging of adhesive materials. For this
reason, thermocycling should be the
sole instrument in the performance
of bonding interfaces under stan-
dardized hydrothermal stresses.19
Several studies have reported a
reduction in bond strength between
resin cement and the metallic alloy
after aging.1,3,4,6,15,19 In addition to
the difference in the coefficient of
thermal expansion between metal
and resin, water absorption has a
harmful effect on the structural
and physical integrity of resin
compounds.3 The cohesive strength
of the material is reduced due to the
occurrence of hydrolytic degrada-
tion, which occurs by oxidization
and/or hydrolysis.31,32 Water absorp-
tion is influenced by the affinity
to hydroxyl groups present in the
organic matrix, promoting bonding
www.agd.org General Dentistry
between hydrogen and water.
Degradation of the resin cement is
directly related to the reduction in
the bond strength of metal.
The failures occurring during
testing varied according to the study
groups. The increased stress during
the shear test increases the deforma-
tion, yet it does not increase the
tensile strength. Moreover, cohesive
failures can occur due to the pres-
ence of defects, microfractures, or
weakening of the organic matrix of
cements because of polymerization
shrinkage. Even though these fail-
ures or microdefects might not be
differentiated as a cause, they affect
the result of the load applied during
testing. In the present study, there
was a tendency toward an increase
in mixed failures in groups with
higher bond strength values. The
mixed failures were related to high
bond strength values associated with
the forces produced by the shear
strength testing.
Conclusion
The results of the present study
encourage the indication of utiliza-
tion of specific metal primers for
the surface treatment of titanium,
with the goal of increasing the
bond strength of resin cements.
Within the limits of this research,
it can be concluded that the
combination of Panavia F and
Rocatec, Al2O3+Alloy Primer, or
Al2O3+Cesead II Opaque Primer or
the combination of Super Bond and
Rocatec or Al2O3+Cesead II Opaque
Primer can be recommended to
increase the bond strength of resin
cement to titanium.
Author information
Dr. Ozcan is a professor, University
of Zurich, Head of Dental Materials
Unit, Center for Dental and Oral
Medicine Clinic for Fixed and
Removable Prosthodontics and
January/February 2012 e11
Dental Materials Bond strength of resin cements to titanium
Dental Materials Science, Switzer-
land. Dr. Valandro is an associate
professor, Federal University of
Santa Maria, Faculty of Odontology,
Oral Sciences MDS/PhD Graduate
Program, Department of Restorative
Dentistry, Division of Prosthodon-
tics, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil.
References
1. Watanabe I, Watanabe E, Yoshida K, Okabe T.
Effect of surface contamination on adhesive
bonding of cast pure titanium and Ti-6Al-4V
alloy. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):270-276.
2. Yanagida H, Matsumura H, Taira Y, Atsuta M,
Shimoe S. Adhesive bonding of composite mate-
rial to cast titanium with varying surface prepa-
rations. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(2):121-126.
3. Taira Y, Yanagida H, Matsumura H, Yoshida K,
Atsuta M, Suzuki S. Adhesive bonding of titani-
um with a thione-phosphate dual functional
primer and self-curing luting agents. Eur J Oral
Sci 2000;108(5):456-460.
4. Taira Y, Yoshida K, Matsumara H, Atsuta M.
Phosphate and thiophosphate primers for bond-
ing prosthodontic luting materials to titanium. J
Prosthet Dent 1998;79(4):384-388.
5. Watanabe I, Matsumara H, Atsuta M. Effect of
two metal primers on adhesive bonding with
type IV gold alloys. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(3):
299-303.
6. Matsumura H, Yanagida H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M,
Shimoe S. Shear bond strength of resin compos-
ite veneering material to gold alloy with varying
metal surface preparations. J Prosthet Dent
2001;86(3):315-319.
7. Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral
repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-
to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30
(2):194-203.
8. Ozcan M. The use of chairside silica coating for
different dental applications: A clinical report. J
Prosthet Dent 2002;87(5):469-472.
9. Sun R, Suansuwan N, Kilpatrick N, Swain M.
Characterisation of tribochemically assisted
bonding of composite resin to porcelain and
metal. J Dent 2000;28(6):441-445.
10. Kojima K, Kadoma Y, Imai Y. Adhesion to pre-
cious metals utilizing triazine dithione derivate
monomer. Dent Mater J 1987;6:702-707.
11. Yoshida K, Kamada K, Sawase T, Atsuta M. Ef-
fect of three adhesive primers for a noble metal
on the shear bond strengths of three resin ce-
ments. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(1):14-19.
12. Yoshida K, Kamada K, Taira Y, Atsuta M. Effect
of three adhesive primers on the bond strengths
e12 January/February 2012 General Dentistry
of four light-activated opaque resins to noble
alloy. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(2):168-173.
13. Antoniadou M, Kern M, Strub JR. Effect of a
new metal primer on the bond strength be-
tween a resin cement and two high-noble al-
loys. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84(5):554-560.
14. Yoshida K, Kamada K, Tanagawa M, Atsuta M.
Shear bond strengths of three resin cements
used with three adhesive primers for metal. J
Prosthet Dent 1996;75(3):254-261.
15. Moulin P, Picard B, Degrange M. Water resis-
tance of resin-bonded joints with time related
to alloy surface treatment. J Dent 1999;27(1):
79-87.
16. White SN, Golshanara A. Fatigue of resin ce-
ment-base metal alloy bond strength. J Prostho-
dont 1996;5(4):253-258.
17. Kern M, Thompson VP. Influence of prolonged
thermal cycling and water storage on the tensile
bond strength of composite to NiCr alloy. Dent
Mater 1994;10(1):19-25.
18. Schneider R, de Goes MF, Henriques GE, Chan
DC. Tensile bond strength of dual curing resin-
based cements to commercially pure titanium.
Dent Mater 2007;23(1):81-87.
19. Taira Y, Yanagida H, Matsumura H, Atsuta M.
Effects of a metal etchant and two primers on
resin bonding durability to titanium. Eur J Oral
Sci 2004;112(1):95-100.
20. Taira Y, Matsumura H, Yoshida K, Tanaka T, Atsu-
ta M. Adhesive bonding of titanium with a
methacrylate-phosphate primer and self-curing
adhesive resins. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22(6):409-
412.
21. Ohno H, Endo K, Yamane Y, Kawashima I. Adhe-
sion of adhesive resin to dental precious metal
alloys. Part II. The relationship between surface
structure of Au-In alloys and adhesive ability
with 4-META resin. Dent Mater J 1998;17(4):
285-293.
22. Suzuki M, Fujishima A, Miyazaki T, Hisamitsu
H, Ando H, Nakahara M, Yamamoto M, Itoh K.
A study on adsorption structures of methacry-
loyloxyalkyl dihydrogen phosphates on silver
substrates by infrared reflection absorption
spectroscopy. J Biomed Mater Res 1997;37(2):
252-260.
23. Tsuchimoto Y, Yoshida Y, Takeuchi M, Mine A,
Yatani H, Tagawa Y, Van Meerbeek B, Suzuki K,
Kuboki T. Effect of surface pre-treatment on du-
rability of resin-based cements bonded to titani-
um. Dent Mater 2006;22(6):545-552.
24. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Ebert J, Lohbauer U,
Kappel S, ten Weges S, Petschelt A. Fatigue be-
havior of the resin-resin bond of partially re-
placed resin-based composite restorations. Am J
Dent 2003;16(1):17:22.
25. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Sindel J. Repair
strength of etched vs silica-coated metal-ceram-
ic and all-ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2000;
25(3):209-215.
www.agd.org
26. Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The effect
of a novel silane blend system on resin bond
strength to silica-coated Ti substrate. J Dent
2006;34(7):436-443.
27. Edelhoff D, Marx R, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M.
Clinical use of an intraoral silicoating technique.
J Esthet Restor Dent 2001;13(6):350-356.
28. Mukai M, Fukui H, Hasegawa J. Relationship
between sandblasting and composite resin-alloy
bond strength by a silica coating. J Prosthet
Dent 1995;74(2):151-155.
29. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Groger G, Handel G. Ad-
hesive bond of veneering composites on various
metal surfaces using silicoating, titanium-coat-
ing or functional monomers. J Dent 2003;31(1):
33-42.
30. Suese K, Iwai K, Kakuda J, Ohtuka K, Sakaida F,
Kawasoe T. Prosthodontic evaluation on casting
restoration of pure titanium. J Jpn Prosthodont
Soc 1984;28:860-867.
31. Soderholm KJ, Zigan M, Ragan M, Fischlschwei-
ger W, Bergman M. Hydrolytic degradation of
dental composites. J Dent Res 1984;63(10):
1248-1254.
32. Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M,
Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacry-
late groups on the surfaces of composite resins.
J Dent Res 1982;61(6):791-795.
Manufacturers
Bredent GmbH & Co., Senden, Germany
49.07309.872.440, www.bredent.com
EMIC Ltd., Sao Jose dos Pinhais, PR, Brazil
55.41.3283.1143, www.universaltestingmachines.net
Ethik Technology, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
55.11.4158.2525, www.ethik.com.br
GC America Inc., Alsip, IL
800.323.7063, www.gcamerica.com
Heraeus Dental North America, South Bend, IN
800.431.1785, www.heraeus-dental-us.com
IBM, Armonk, NY
800.746.7426, www.ibm.com
Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA
800.537.7123, www.kerrdental.com
Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY
800.879.1676, www.kuraraydental.com
Sun Medical, Moriyama City, Japan
81.77.582.9981, www.sunmedical.co.jp
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN
800.634.2249, solutions.3m.com
Published with permission by the Academy of
General Dentistry. © Copyright 2012 by the
Academy of General Dentistry. All rights reserved.