Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

ISSN: 0169-4243 (Print) 1568-5616 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tast20

Bond strength and durability of universal adhesive

agents with lithium disilicate ceramics: A shear
bond strength study

Mohammed AlRabiah, Nawaf Labban, John A. Levon, David T. Brown, Tien-

Min Chu, Marco C. Bottino & Jeffery A. Platt

To cite this article: Mohammed AlRabiah, Nawaf Labban, John A. Levon, David T. Brown, Tien-
Min Chu, Marco C. Bottino & Jeffery A. Platt (2017): Bond strength and durability of universal
adhesive agents with lithium disilicate ceramics: A shear bond strength study, Journal of Adhesion
Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2017.1372932

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2017.1372932

Published online: 20 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tast20

Download by: [University of Sussex Library] Date: 22 September 2017, At: 16:59
 Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2017.1372932

Bond strength and durability of universal adhesive agents

with lithium disilicate ceramics: A shear bond strength study
Mohammed AlRabiaha,b, Nawaf Labbana, John A. Levonb, David T. Brownc,
Tien-Min Chud, Marco C. Bottinod and Jeffery A. Plattd
a
Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia;
b
Department of Prosthodontics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA; cDepartment
of Comprehensive Care and General Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN,USA;
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

d
Department of Biomedical and Applied Sciences, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim was to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium Received 12 April 2017
disilicate (LD) ceramic to resin composite with different universal Revised 19 July 2017
adhesives, duration of ageing and silane. One hundred and twenty Accepted 17 August 2017
LD ceramic discs were processed, fired and etched (HF acid 5%) for 20 KEYWORDS
s (sec). All specimens were divided into 12 groups (n = 10), based on Universal adhesive agent;
different combinations of, 3 different universal adhesives [Scotchbond Silane; ageing; shear bond
(SB) Universal Adhesive, All-Bond (AB) Universal, and Futurabond U strength; durability
(FU)], silane and different duration of ageing [24 h and 3 months].
Composite resin cylinders (Tetric ceram) (3mm × 2 mm) were formed
using bonding jig on ceramic and were light-cured. The specimens in
groups 1–6 and 7–12 were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 24 h and
3 months (thermocycling -5000 cycles 5–55 °C/30 s dwell time) before
being subjected to bond strength testing respectively. Using universal
testing machine shear bond test was performed at a crosshead speed
of 1  mm/min. Failure modes and fracture patterns were assessed
using stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope. Analysis
of variance was performed to analyze data. SBS was significantly
higher with silane than without silane (p < 0.01), regardless of the
type of adhesive or storage duration. Specimens tested at 24 h storage
showed significantly higher (p < 0.01) SBS than specimens tested after
3-months. A comparison among different universal adhesives showed
significantly distinct bond strength (p < 0.01). Optimal bonds to LD
were achieved by application of silane. While ageing through storage
had a negative impact on the SBS, it varied among different adhesives.

1. Introduction
All-ceramic restorations are prevalent in clinical dentistry due to their nonmetallic, biocom-
patible, and improved esthetic features [1]. These are commonly used in the provision of
inlays, onlays, veneers, and crowns [2]. The materials used in the fabrication of all-ceramic
restorations include silica-based glass ceramics (feldspathic porcelain, leucite-reinforced
ceramic, and lithium disilicate ceramic) and silica-free high-strength ceramics such as

CONTACT  Nawaf Labban  nawaflabban@gmail.com, nalabban@ksu.edu.sa

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   M. ALRABIAH ET AL.

zirconia and alumina [3]. Both silica-based and silica-free ceramics have specific properties
and specific directions for use, in addition to a recommended adhesive agent to achieve a
strong and long-term bonding success [1,3,4]. Lithium disilicate ceramic (LD) (SiO2–Li2O)
crystals are larger in size compared to leucite and are introduced in dental restorations to
improve mechanical strength [5,6]. In addition, LD ceramics have shown chemical dura-
bility, improved fracture toughness, flexural strength and desirable esthetics [7–9].
The clinical success of ceramic restorations is critically based on the reliability of the
adhesive bond between the luting agent and ceramic surface [10]. The practice of applying
silane-coupling agents to enhance the bond of resin composite to silica-based ceramic is well
accepted. A silane primer has a hydroxyl silicon-methyl group that binds to the hydroxyl
group of the ceramic silicate. Silane application creates an interfacial layer to interact with
resin monomer, promoting a durable adhesive bond of silica-based materials including LD
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

ceramics with resin composites [11–13].

Dental adhesives used in luting of indirect restorations to dentin should withstand
mechanical forces and prevent leakage along the margins of the restoration [14]. Ongoing
research on dental adhesives has resulted in the development of single-step adhesives (no
silane application) that are compatible with tooth structure and restorative materials. Single-
step adhesives simplify the clinical procedures by minimizing the technique sensitivity of the
luting process and reduce technique errors. Popularly known as universal adhesives, single
step adhesives have shown reliable bonding ability [10,15,16] in comparison with other
conventional dentin bonding agents [15–21]. In addition, durability of universal adhesives
is critical for the long-term success of bonded LD ceramics. Few studies have assessed the
durability of different universal adhesives with and without the use of silane over time. It is
hypothesized that different universal adhesives will show similar bond strength and dura-
bility with and without the use of silane when employed in the bonding of LD ceramics.
Therefore the aim of the present study was to assess the bond strength of LD ceramic to
resin composite universal adhesives with and without the application of silane and ageing.

2.  Materials and methods

The shear bond strength (SBS) of lithium disilicate ceramic using three universal adhesive
bonding agents when bonded to composite resin with and without the use of silane was
investigated. Blocks of lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY)
in bisque (blue, metasilicate) form were sectioned into rectangular coupons using a low-
speed cutting diamond blade (0.4-mm thickness) (Isomet, Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL).
One hundred and twenty IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) ceramic discs (10 × 10 ×
2 mm) were processed and fired according to the manufacturer’s instruction (Appendix
1). Acrylic cubes (15 × 15 mm × 20 mm3) were placed around each ceramic coupon. The
samples were mounted in the cubes by using Fastray (Bosworth Co., Skokie, IL) self-curing
acrylic resin. To establish a uniform surface, each specimen was finished and polished with
a wheel rotational polishing machine using 180- and 400-grit, respectively, by silica carbide
abrasive paper under a steady stream of water. All specimens were subjected to ultrasonic
cleaning in distilled water for 10 min. The specimens were treated with hydrofluoric Acid
gel (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel 5%, Ivoclar Vivadent) for 20 s. All specimens were washed
(20 s) and air-dried (60 s) prior to surface treatment (Appendix 2).
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   3

All specimens were divided into 12 groups (N = 10) based on different combinations of
surface treatments, using different universal adhesive agents, silane and different duration
of storage and ageing [24 h and 3 months, prior to bond strength testing]. The adhesive
agents used included Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (3  M ESPE), All-Bond Universal
(BISCO), and Futurabond U (Voco). These adhesives were used to bond composite resin
(Tetric ceram shade A3. Ivoclar Vivadent) to ceramic specimens. The details of the exper-
imental groups are as follows,
Group 1: Scotchbond (SB), no silane (S), 24 h storage.
Group 2: SB, S, 24 h storage.
Group 3: Allbond (AB), no S, 24 h storage.
Group 4: AB, S, 24 h storage.
Group 5: Futura U (FU), no S, 24 h storage.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

Group 6: FU, S, 24 h storage.

Group 7: SB, no S, 3 months storage.
Group 8: SB, S, 3 months storage
Group 9: AB, no S, 3 months storage
Group 10: AB, S, 3 months storage
Group 11: FU, no S, 3 months storage
Group 12: FU, S, 3 months storage
Silane (Ultradent) was applied and left to evaporate for 60 s before the universal adhesive
was applied. The universal adhesive was applied according to manufacturer’s directions,
their composition and method of application is shown in Appendix 3. After adhesive appli-
cation, a composite resin (Tetric ceram shade A3. Ivoclar Vivadent), was placed on top of
the adhesive using a bonding jig (Ultradent) to create cylinders of 3 mm in diameter and
2 mm in height and light-cured using an Optilux 400 light cure unit (Demetron Research
Corp, Danbury, CT). The specimens in groups 1–6 were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for
24 h, however specimens in groups 7–12 were exposed to distilled water (37 °C) storage for
3 months and thermocycling (5000 cycles 5–55 °C/30 s dwell time) before being subjected
to bond strength testing. Shear bond test was performed using universal testing machine
(Instron Corp, Model 4411, Canton, Mass), with knife-edge blade touching the interface
of ceramic and composite–resin build-up. Shear loads were applied at a crosshead speed
of 1 mm/min until failure. Loads were converted to MPa (mega-pascal) by dividing the
failure load (N) with bonding area (mm2). The SBS was obtained from a computer software
program, Test-Works 4.0 (MTS Systems Corporation, St. Paul, MN). SBS values in MPa
were calculated by dividing the peak load by the bonded area.
Debonded specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope at X45 magnification
to evaluate the fracture pattern. The failure modes were classified as follows: (1) Adhesive
failure at the restorative material interface. (2) Cohesive failure within the lithium disilicate
restorative material surface. (3) Mixed failure – partially adhesive and partially cohesive. In
addition, to obtain qualitative information on the ceramic surface after debonding, scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM) (JEOL JSM-5310LV, Jeol Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) was used.
The effects of the adhesive bonding agent on SBS were evaluated using ANOVA. Pair-wise
comparisons were made using Fisher’s protected least significant differences and a p value
of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.
 4   M. ALRABIAH ET AL.

3. Results
Statistical comparison of all experimental groups showed significant difference among the
bond strength values (p < 0.01) (ANOVA) (Table 1).

3.1.  Samples tested at 24 h

Among the samples tested at 24 h interval, the highest and lowest bond strength values
were shown by specimens in group 4 [(All-bond (AB) with silane) (20.3 (2.0)] and group 5
[(Futura U (FU) without silane) [10.6 (1.5)] respectively. Among the groups tested at 24 h,
where silane was not applied, the bond strength values of specimens in groups 1,3 and 5
(SB, AB and FU) was statistically comparable (p > 0.05) (Table 2). Among the specimens
with silane application, bond strength in group 2 (SB) was comparable to group 4 (AB) and
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

group 6 (FU) (p > 0.05). However, group 4 (AB) specimens showed significantly higher
bond strength values than specimens in group 6 (FU) (p < 0.05) (Table 2).

3.2.  Samples tested at 3 months

Among specimens tested at 3 months, the highest and lowest bond strengths were shown by
specimens in group 12 [(FU with silane) [13.1 (1.6)] and group 7 [(SB without silane) [6.2
(1.1)] respectively (Table 1). Among the groups tested at 3 months, where silane was not
applied, the bond strength value for group 11 (FU) was statistically comparable to group 7
(SB) and group 9 (AB) respectively (p > 0.05). However, specimens in group 9 (AB) showed
higher bond strength than specimens in group 7 (SB) (p = 0.03). Among the specimens with
silane application, bond strength was significantly higher in group 12 (FU) as compared
to group 8 (SB) (p < 0.05).

3.3.  Affect of silane and storage

Furthermore, the results showed that the SBS was significantly higher with silane appli-
cation than without silane application (p  <  0.01), regardless of the type of adhesive or
storage duration (Table 3). Moreover, storage duration showed a significant reduction of
bond strength with respect to silane and regardless of the type of bonding agent (p < 0.01)
(Table 3, Figure 1).

3.4.  Failure mode

For all the examined debonded specimens, the fracture pattern and the failure mode were
mixed – partially adhesive and partially cohesive. Figure 2 shows the SEM result and image

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of Shear bond strengths (MPa) among the experimental groups.
Adhesive type Silane 24 h Group-Mean (SD) 3 months Mean MPa (SD) p value
Scotchbond (SB) NO Gp 1-12.1 (1.2) Gp 7-6.2 (1.1) <0.01
YES Gp 2-18.3 (1.5) Gp 8-10.5 (1.4)
All-Bond (AB) NO Gp 3-12.0 (1.4) Gp 9-8.4 (1.0)
YES Gp 4-20.3 (2.0) Gp 10-11.7 (1.6)
Futura U (FU) NO Gp 5-10.6 (1.5) Gp 11-7.4 (1.3)
YES Gp 6-17.1 (1.6) Gp 12-13.1 (1.6)
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   5

Table 2. Influence of different universal bonding agents on the SBS of specimens.

Mean difference Experimental Mean difference
Experimental groups (MPa) p value groups (MPa) p value
24 h storage 3 months storage
Gp 1 (SBNS) vs. Gp 3 0.10 1.00 Gp 7 (SBNS) vs. Gp 9 2.20 0.034*
(ABNS) (ABNS)
Gp 1 (SBNS) vs. Gp 5 1.50 0.396 Gp 7 (SBNS) vs. Gp 11 1.20 0.724
(FUNS) (FUNS)
Gp 3 (ABNS) vs. Gp 5 1.40 0.497 Gp 9(ABNS) vs. Gp 1.0 0.889
(FUNS) 11(FUNS)
Gp 2 (SBS) vs. Gp 4 2.0 0.079 Gp 8 (SBS) vs. Gp 1.20 0.706
(ABS) 10(ABS)
Gp 2(SBS) vs. Gp 6 1.20 0.706 Gp 8 (SBS) vs. Gp 2.60 <0.01**
(FUS) 12(FUS)
Gp 4 (ABS) vs. Gp 6 3.20 <0.01** Gp 10 (ABS) vs. Gp 1.40 0.533
(FUS) 12(FUS)
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

Note: SB: Scothchbond, AB: All bond, Futura U: FU, N: No, S: silane.
*Statistically significant; **Highly significant.

Table 3. Influence of Silane and Storage duration on the SBS of specimens.

Mean difference Experimental Mean difference
Experimental groups (MPa) p value groups (MPa) p value
Effect of silane Effect of storage
Gp 1 vs. Gp 2 6.20 <0.01 Gp 1 vs. Gp 7 5.90 <0.01
Gp 3 vs. Gp 4 8.30 <0.01 Gp 2 vs. Gp 8 7.80 <0.01
Gp 5 vs. Gp 6 6.50 <0.01 Gp 3 vs. Gp 9 3.60 <0.01
Gp 7 vs. Gp 8 4.30 <0.01 Gp 4 vs. Gp 10 8.60 <0.01
Gp 9 vs. Gp 10 3.30 <0.01 Gp 5 vs. Gp 11 3.20 <0.01
Gp 11 vs. Gp 12 5.70 <0.01 Gp 6 vs. Gp 12 4.00 <0.01
Note: p < 0.01: significant difference.

Figure 1. Presentation of bond strength values comparing different bonding agents with respect to silane
application and storage duration.

descriptions of the ceramic side for randomly selected failed sample. The SEM result shows
agreement with the stereomicroscope result regarding the mixed failure mode.
 6   M. ALRABIAH ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

Figure 2. SEM image of mixed failure showing composite filler (A) and bonding agent (B) can be identified
on the fractured ceramic surface (C).

4. Discussion
In the present study it was hypothesized that different universal adhesives will show simi-
lar bond strength and durability with and without the use of silane when employed in the
bonding of LD ceramics to resin. The hypothesis was rejected as the bond strengths among
the experimental groups based on different universal adhesives; silane use and storage
duration was significantly different.
Lithium disilicate crystals (SiO2–Li2O) constitute almost 70% of the glass ceramic matrix
and has high flexural resistance due to interlocking of plate like crystals. Recently, a new
generation of monolithic LD glass-ceramic material (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) was
developed with flexural strength values between 360 and 400 MPa for CAD and pressed
restorations, respectively [22,23]. Having an improved flexural strength by a factor of 3
over leucite based ceramic, LD ceramics can be used for 3-unit fixed partial dentures in the
anterior area, and can extend to the second premolar region [24,25].
Three different universal adhesives were tested in the study. The main difference in the
composition of these universal adhesives was the incorporation of silane in Scotchbond
(SB). However, the results showed that SB showed comparable bond strength values to
other adhesives tested in the study (p > 0.05) (All-Bond and Futura U). This implies that the
silane contained in SB failed to produce any significant chemical bonds with the ceramic.
These findings are in agreement with the results of Kalavacharla et al. [16] who compared
the effect of SB with and without silane application on the bond strength of LD ceramics.
They reported that the bond strength was significantly improved when silane was applied
prior to the application of the universal adhesive [16]; thus, the incorporation of silane in
the universal adhesive itself would seem ineffective in improving the ceramic-resin bond.
A possible explanation may be derived from the fact that the presence of various compo-
nents within the same bottle (reportedly bis-GMA) may inhibit the influence of silane by
disrupting the condensation reaction with the hydroxyl group of a silica-based ceramic
[26,27]. Furthermore, the acidic functional monomer 10-MDP (incorporated in universal
adhesives) may impede the ideal chemical interaction between silane and ceramics, owing
to the tendency for premature hydrolysis in an acidic environment [28].
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   7

The results in the present study, revealed significantly higher bond strength for silanized
than non-silanized specimens regardless of the type of adhesive and ageing duration.
Previous studies have shown similar outcomes, reporting silane to be a critical factor in
the adhesive bonding of lithium disilicate ceramics [16,29]. Silanes are bifunctional mole-
cules that improve the wetting of the etched ceramic surface and facilitate the penetration
of adhesive resin on ceramic surface. This study further confirmed that lithium disilicate
should undergo silanization prior to bonding.
In a study by Guarda et al. the effect of water storage and thermocycling on the resin bond
adhesives was assessed [23]. It was concluded, that water storage and thermocycling caused
deterioration in the adhesive bond and reduced the bond strengths regardless of the adhesive
or the presence of silane [23]. Similarly in the present study, bond strength values regardless
of the bonding agents used were significantly higher at 24 h storage compared to the bond
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

strength at 3 months. Explanations for the effect of ageing are twofold. Firstly, repeated
exposure of resin to changing temperatures results in monomer conversion, leaving fewer
carbon to carbon bonds for methacrylate monomer in adhesives [30]. Secondly, hydrolysis
and elution of residual monomer compromises the adhesive bond [31]. Interestingly, after 3
months of storage ageing in distilled water, Futura U showed the maximum bond strength
values, which were comparable to All-bond (AB) and significantly higher than SB adhesives.
Although the authors consider the compositions of these adhesives to be a possible cause
for these findings. The exact cause for these findings needs to be investigated.
The quality of the bond was also evaluated based on the mode of failure analysis, pro-
viding necessary information for adhesive abilities and limitations. SEM micrographs of
fractured surfaces revealed that all fractures were mixed failures regardless of silane appli-
cation. These findings are in accordance with Kalavacharla et al. which showed that when
silane is applied, the mode of failure was mixed [16]. The contents of universal adhesives
in the present study may be the cause of considerable bond strength and involvement of all
three layers of the bonding system, hence resulting in mixed failures (even in the groups
without silane application).
Although clinical trials produce the most reliable evidence, in vitro adhesion tests pro-
vide immediate information on the bonding effectiveness of new materials. However, the
outcomes shown in the present study are restricted to the materials used and cannot be
generalized. In addition, shear bond studies should also be verified with microtensile test-
ing due to increased premature failures. As the findings in the present study are based on
in vitro behavior of the specific materials used, therefore these outcomes in relation to the
universal adhesives needs verification through long-term clinical trials. With regards to
clinical relevance, although universal adhesives are proposed to simplify clinical technique,
they must be applied in combination with silanes for ensuring long-term adhesive bond
durability against hydrolytic and thermal breakdown. In addition, Futura U has greater
potential to provide long-term adhesive bond stability among universal adhesives.

5. Conclusion
A comparison among different universal adhesives showed significantly distinct bond
strength values. Silane was a constituent part of universal adhesive but the optimal bonds
to LD were achieved by application of silane prior to application of universal adhesives.
 8   M. ALRABIAH ET AL.

Ageing through storage had a negative impact on the bond strength of LD ceramics with
universal adhesives.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Delta Dental Foundation for providing assistance
and funding.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

References
  [1] Chen L, Suh BI. Bonding of resin materials to all-ceramics: a review. Curr Res Dent. 2012;3:3–17.
  [2] Shenoy A, Shenoy N. Dental ceramics: an update. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13:195–203.
  [3] Nagai T, Kawamoto Y, Kakehashi Y, et al. Adhesive bonding of a lithium disilicate ceramic
material with resin-based luting agents. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32:598–605.
  [4] McLean JW. Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:61–
66.
  [5] Solá-Ruiz MF, Lagos-Flores E, Román-Rodriguez JL, et al. Survival rates of a lithium disilicate–
based core ceramic for three-unit esthetic fixed partial dentures: a 10-year prospective study.
Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26:175–180.
  [6] Nakamura T, Ohyama T, Imanishi A, et al. Fracture resistance of pressable glass-ceramic fixed
partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:951–955.
  [7] Holand W, Schweiger M, Frank M, et al. A comparison of the microstructure and properties of
the IPS Empress 2 and the IPS Empress glassceramics. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53:297–303.
  [8] Peng Z, Izzat Abdul Rahman M, Zhang Y, et al. Wear behavior of pressable lithium disilicate
glass ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016 Jul;104:968–978.
  [9] Oh SC, Dong JK, Luthy H, et al. Strength and microstructure of IPS Empress-2 glass-ceramic
after different treatments. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:468–472.
[10] Isolan CP, Valente LL, Münchow EA, et al. Bond strength of a universal bonding agent and
other contemporary dental adhesives applied on enamel, dentin, composite, and porcelain.
Appl Adhes Sci. 2014;2:1–10.
[11] Bitter K, Paris S, Hartwig C, et al. Shear bond strengths of different substrates bonded to lithium
disilicate ceramics. Dent Mater J. 2006;25:493–502.
[12] Borges GA, Sophr AM, Goes MFd, et al. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the
microstructure of different dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:479–488.
[13] Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Papacchini F, et al. The effect of different surface treatments on
bond strength between leucite reinforced feldspathic ceramic and composite resin. J Dent.
2010;38:39–43.
[14] Silva e Souza Junior M, KGK Carneiro, M Lobato, et al. Adhesive systems: important aspects
related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18:207–214.
[15] Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, et al. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in
different etching modes. J Dent. 2014;42:800–807.
[16] Kalavacharla VK, Lawson NC, Ramp LC, et al. Influence of etching protocol and silane treatment
with a universal adhesive on lithium disilicate bond strength. Oper Dent. 2015;40:372–378.
[17] Amaral M, Belli R, Cesar PF, et al. The potential of novel primers and universal adhesives to
bond to zirconia. J Dent. 2014;42:90–98.
[18] Azimian F, Klosa K, Kern M. Evaluation of a new universal primer for ceramics and alloys. J
Adhes Dent. 2012;14:275–282.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   9

[19] Vargas MA, Bergeron C, Arnold AD. Cementing all-ceramic restorations recommendations

for success. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;142:20–24.
[20] Muñoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, et al. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to
dentine. J Dent. 2013;41:404–411.
[21] Panah FG, Rezai SM, Ahmadian L. The influence of ceramic surface treatments on the micro-
shear bond strength of composite resin to IPS Empress 2. J Prosthodont. 2008;17:409–414.
[22] Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, et al. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/
polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26:382–393.
[23] Guarda GB, Correr AB, Gonçalves LS, et al. Effects of surface treatments, thermocycling, and
cyclic loading on the bond strength of a resin cement bonded to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic.
Oper Dent. 2013;38:208–217.
[24] Nakamura T, Ohyama T, Imanishi A, et al. Fracture resistance of pressable glass-ceramic fixed
partial dentures. J Oral Rehab. 2002;29:951–955.
[25] Oh SC, Dong JK, Luthy H, et al. Strength and microstructure of IPS Empress 2 glass-ceramic
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

after different treatments. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:468–472.

[26] Chen L, Shen H, Suh BI. Effect of incorporating BisGMA resin on the bonding properties of
silane and zirconia primers. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110:402–407.
[27] Kim RJ, Woo JS, Lee IB, et al. Performance of universal adhesives on bonding to leucite-
reinforced ceramic. Biomater Res. 2015;19:1–6.
[28] Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry:
an overview. Dent Mater. 2012;28:467–477.
[29] Alfredo MH, Luiz CCV, Alito A, et al. Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin
microtensile bond strength. J Prothodont. 2004;13:28–35.
[30] Souza RO, Özcan M, Michida SM, et al. Conversion degree of indirect resin composites and
effect of thermocycling on their physical properties. J Prosthodont. 2010;19:218–225.
[31] Tabatabaei MH, Sadrai S, Bassir SH, et al. Effect of food stimulated liquids and thermocycling
on the monomer elution from a nanofilled composite. Open Dent J. 2013;7:62–67.

Appendix 1.  Ceramic processing parameters

Furnace CS Program
Stand-by temperature 403/757 [°C/°F]
Closing time 6:00 [min]
Heating rate 90/162 [°C/°F/min]
Firing temperature T 820/1508 [°C/°F]
Holding time H1 0:10 [min]
Heating rate 30/54 [°C/°F/min]
Firing temperature T2 840/1544 [°C/°F]
Holding time H2 7:00 [min]
Vacuum 1
11 550/820 [°C/°F]
12 1022/1508 [°C/°F]
Vacuum 2
21 820/840 [°C/°F]
22 1508/1544 [°C/°F]
Long-term cooling L 700/1292 [°C/°F]
 10   M. ALRABIAH ET AL.

Appendix 2.  Materials used

Name Manufacturer Batch Composition

Scotchbond Univer- 3M ESPE 41254 Bisphenol A Glycidyl methacrylate hydroxyethyl methacrylate
sal Adhesive Ethanol, water, silane treated silica, propenoic Acid, Methyl
decanedioland phosphorus Oxide
Copolymer of acrylic and itaconic acid
Dimethylaminobenzoat
Camphorquinone
(Dimethylamino) Ethyl methacrylate
methyl ethyl ketone
All-Bond Universal Bisco 1200006111 MDP, Bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate, Hydroxyethylmeth-
acrylate, ethanol, water, initiators
Futura Bond U Voco 1572 Hydroxyethylmethacrylate, Bisphenol A Glycidyl methacrylate
hydroxyethyl methacrylate
Urethane dimethacrylate
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 16:59 22 September 2017

Acidic adhesive monomer, ethanol, initiaitor, catalyst

IPS e.max Cad Ivoclar 605330 Silicon Oxide (SiO) Additional contents: Lithium oxide, potas-
Vivadent sium oxide, Magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide, phospho-
rus oxide and other oxides
IPS ceramic etching Ivoclar 531548 Hydroflouric acid
gel Vivadent
Silane Coupling Ultradent 10324 Methacryloxy propyl trimethoxy silane isopropyl Alcohol
agent

Appendix 3.  Manufacturers instructions for material use

Name Direction
Scotchbond universal Rinse the surface with water and dry with water free and oil free air
adhesive In combination with other composite cements
• Place one drop each of scotchbond Universal Universal DCA in a mixing well and mix for 5 s
• Immediately after mixing , use the applicator to apply the adhesive tot eh surface of resto-
ration to be cemented and allow it to react for 20 s do not light cure

Follow the instructions for use from the manufacturer to apply the cement
All-Bond Universal Apply 1 coat of ALL-BOND UNIVERSAL and air dry to remove excess solvent. Light cure for 10
s
Futurabond U Clean thoroughly with water spray and dry with moisture and oil free air
Activating Futuraband U Single Dose
Detach a single dose blister at the perforation and turn the printed side up. Hold the
SingleDose blister between the thumb and forefinger, by pressing on the area marked
“press here” allow the liquid contained in the blister to flow into the mixing and dispensing
chamber. Expand the opening to its maximum size using a circular motion. By stirring thor-
oughly with the applicator, create a homogenous, streak-free mixture of the two liquids
Apply the adhesive homogenously to the surface and rub in the 20 s using the applicator
Dry off the adhesive layer with dry air for the at least 5 s in order to remove any solvents
Cure adhesive layer for 10 s using a commercially available polymerization device