d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Panavia F 2.0 bonding to contaminated zirconia

ceramic after different cleaning procedures

A.C. Quaas a , B. Yang b , M. Kern b,∗

a Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany
b Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the influence of different
Received 18 April 2005 cleaning methods after saliva contamination and after using a silicone disclosing medium
Received in revised form on the resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic. The hypothesis was that the resin-ceramic
6 March 2006 bond strength and its durability are related to the ceramic surface condition.
Accepted 8 March 2006 Methods. Plexiglas tubes filled with composite resin were bonded to air-abraded zirconia
ceramic disks using a phosphate monomer containing composite resin. Four surface clean-
ing methods were used after contaminating the ceramic surface: air abrasion with 50 ␮m
Keywords: Al2 O3 at 2.5 bar pressure for 15 s, cleaning with 37% phosphoric acid for 60 s once or for 30 s
Bond strength twice, or cleaning in 96% isopropanol for 15 s. The specimens of the control group were not
Cleaning methods cleaned after using the silicone disclosing medium. For each combination 16 specimens
Cercon were bonded in an alignment apparatus. Subgroups of eight bonded specimens were tested
Air abrasion for tensile bond strength (TBS) after storage for either 3 or 150 days combined with 37,500
Zirconia ceramic thermal cycles. The statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal–Wallis test, fol-
Panavia F 2.0 lowed by multiple pair-wise comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Silicone disclosing medium Results. The mean TBS ranged from 6.6 to 49.9 MPa after 3 days and from 0 to 19.8 MPa after
Fit checker 150 days. Air abrasion of the ceramic surface provided statistically significantly higher bond
strengths than the other cleaning methods after 3 and 150 days. Alcohol cleaning of the
ceramic did not provide durable bond strengths over time.
Significance. Ceramic cleaning methods after try-in procedures have a significant influence
on the resin-ceramic bond strength. Air abrasion of contaminated zirconia ceramic is the
most effective.
© 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Dental Materials. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction bonded fixed partial dentures [3–5] and all-ceramic crowns

The adhesive cementation of all-ceramic restorations is
widely accepted for clinical use and bonding of luting resin
to ceramic has improved significantly over the last decade.
Various clinical and laboratory studies document the success
of long-term resin bond to dental ceramics, such as porce-
lain laminate veneers [1], ceramic inlays and onlays [2], resin-
[6,7].
Recently, a number of zirconium oxide ceramic systems
have been introduced including Cercon (DeguDent, Germany),
LAVA (3M ESPE, Germany) and Procera AllZirkon (NobelBio-
care, Sweden). Full-coverage zirconia ceramic restorations and
FPDs may not require adhesive cementation [8]. However, a
durable resin bond to ceramic is necessary in some special

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 431 5972874; fax: +49 431 5972860.
E-mail address: mkern@proth.uni-kiel.de (M. Kern).
0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Dental Materials. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.03.008
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512
clinical situations, such as compromised retention and short
abutment teeth [9] or for resin bonded FPDs [4,5,10]. High-
strength ceramic materials such as zirconium oxide-based
ceramics require alternative bonding techniques to achieve a
long-term durable resin-ceramic bond because conventional
hydrofluoric etching has no positive influence on the bond
strength [11]. Compared with silica-based ceramics, in the
literature only a few studies regarding bonding methods to
zirconium oxide ceramics have been published. These studies
suggest the use of resin cements that contain special adhesive
monomers [12–16].
All-ceramic restorations finished for cementation are usu-
ally already air-abraded from the dental laboratory. After the
try-in of the restoration again, the ceramic surface might be
contaminated by saliva, blood or silicone fit-indicators. The
use of a silicone disclosing medium allows the dentist to
improve the fit of dental restorations by detecting interfer-
ence spots on the internal casting surfaces before cemen-
tation. However, residual organic and silicone contaminants
may decrease bond strengths and should be removed from
the surface before cementation.
Saliva contamination of etched enamel is one of the most
frequent reasons for poor or failed bond strength. A recent
study evaluated the effects of various saliva contamination
periods on the surface topography of etched enamel sur-
faces [17]. It could be shown that the salivary contaminant
could be successfully removed by water-rinsing only when
the salivary exposure time is less than 1 s. Salivary exposure
times of more than 1 s will lead to an adherent organic coat-
ing that is not removed by conventional washing methods
and it would be necessary to repeat the etching procedure.
The effect of ceramic surface contamination with saliva and
the subsequent cleaning of the surface with phosphoric acid
was evaluated by Nicholls et al. [18]. Comparing two differ-
ent surface cleaning methods, cleaning with phosphoric acid
showed higher bond strength values than cleaning with ace-
tone. However, the bond strength was evaluated without the
influence of long-term water storage and long-term thermal
cycling so that there is no indication for the bonding durabil-
ity.
Szep et al. evaluated the influence of silicone disclosing
procedures on the shear bond strength of composite cements
to industrially sintered (Cerec) and laboratory sintered (Duc-
eram) ceramic restorations after differently conditioning the
ceramic surface [19]. This study showed that etching the spec-
imens with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 60 s after using a
fluid silicone did not lead to a significant reduction of the
shear bond strength between ceramic and composite cement.
Another study found that the use of a silicone fit-indicator
significantly reduced the crown retention bonded with zinc
phosphate cement because of a residual silicone film remain-
ing on the inner surface of the crown [20]. Cleaning with a
metal cleaner before cementation did not reverse the effect.
Therefore, after the try-in of restorations in a patient’s mouth,
they should be air-abraded with Al2 O3 before cementation. In
short, after using a silicone disclosing medium, silicone rem-
nants may decrease bond strengths and should be removed
from the surface before bonding.
Therefore, the purpose of this laboratory study was to
evaluate the influence of different ceramic surface cleaning
507
methods after saliva contamination and after using a silicone
disclosing medium on the resin-ceramic bond strength of an
adhesive bonding system to zirconia ceramic. The study was
designed to test the hypothesis that the resin-ceramic bond
strength and its durability are related to the cleaning meth-
ods of the contaminated ceramic bonding surface.
2. Materials and methods
Disk-like specimens were made from the zirconia ceramic Cer-
con (94% ZrO2 stabilised by 5% Y2 O3 , DeguDent, Germany,
Batch No. 20009176). The disks had a diameter of 8 mm and
a thickness of 3.4 mm. All specimens were polished with a
rotating silicon carbide paper down to 600 grit and airborne
particle abraded with 50 ␮m Al2 O3 at 2.5 bar pressure (15 s)
at a distance of 10 mm at most, 1 h before bonding. After-
wards, the specimens were immersed in saliva for 1 min.
Saliva was collected from the first healthy author who had
refrained from eating and drinking 1.5 h prior to the collec-
tion procedure. All experiments were performed using fresh
saliva collected at the same occasion. The specimens were fol-
lowed by water-spraying for 15 s and air-drying for another
15 s. Then the specimens were pressed into the freshly mixed
silicone disclosing medium (Fit Checker black, GC Corporation,
Tokyo, Japan) with finger pressure for 3 min. Because there
were no visible remnants after removing the black silicone
fluid, the specimens were not cleaned with water spray. All
specimens were cleaned using the following methods. Then a
phosphate monomer modified composite resin (Panavia F2.0,
Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) was applied to the cleaned ceramic sur-
face. Four different ceramic cleaning methods were used after
contamination and the following codes were assigned to the
groups:
The specimens were classified into five experimental
groups according to the cleaning methods: air-abraded with
50 ␮m Al2 O3 at 2.5 bar pressure for 15 s at a distance of 10 mm
and then air cleaned with compressed air (group AIR); etched
with 37% phosphoric acid for 60 s once, then rinsed with
water spray for 15 s and dried for another 15 s (group PH1);
etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s twice and then water-
sprayed for 15 s and dried for 15 s (group PH2); immersed in
96% isopropanol for 15 s and then rinsed with tap water for
15 s (group ALC); or rinsed with tap water only (group CTR).
Table 1 shows the composition of the used materials.
Plexiglas tubes with an inner diameter of 3.2 mm were filled
with auto-curing composite resin (Clearfil FII, Kuraray Med-
ical Inc., Osaka, Japan). After 7 min from mixing, the filled
tubes were bonded with Panavia F 2.0 composite resin (Kuraray
Medical Inc., Osaka, Japan) to the ceramic surface using an
alignment apparatus under a load of 750 g [21]. The appa-
ratus ensured that the tube axis was perpendicular to the
surface (Fig. 1). After excess resin was removed, an air block-
ing gel (Oxyguard II, Kuraray Medical Inc., Osaka, Japan) was
applied around the bonding margins. The bonded specimens
were light-cured for 20 s from two opposite sides with a den-
tal curing light machine (Optilux 500, Kerr, Danbury, USA),
further cured in a light-curing unit (UniXS, Heraeus-Kulzer,
Wehrheim, Germany) for an additional 90 s, and placed at
room temperature for 10 min, and then stored in 37 ◦ C water.
508 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512

Table 1 – List of used materials and their characteristics

System Component Batch No. Main compositiona Manufacturer

Clearfil Base paste 01696 B BisGMA/TEGDMA/DMA/ Kuraray, Osaka, Japan

FII Catalyst paste 01597 B Barium sulphate/silica cont. composite

Panavia F2.0 A-paste 00037 A BPEDMA/MDP/DMA/ Kuraray, Osaka, Japan

B-paste 00020 A Ba–B–Si–glass/silica cont. composite
Oxyguard II 00471 A Polyethyleneglycol/glycerin gel

Cercon Base 38 20009176 ZrO2 (94%),Y2 O3 (5%), Al2 O3 (<1%),Si2 O3 (<1%) cont. ceramic DeguDent, Hanau, Germany
Fit Checker Base paste 0301161 Si cont. silicone GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Black Catalyst paste 0301161 Sn cont. silicone

BisGMA, bisphenol-A-diglycidylmethacrylate; BPEDMA, bisphenol-A-polyethoxy dimethacrylate; DMA, aliphatic dimethacrylate; MDP, 10-
methacryloyloxy-decyl dihydrogenphosphate; TEGDMA = triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, Al, aluminum; B, boron; Ba, barium; Si, silicium;
Sn, stannous; Zr, zirconium; Y, yttrium; cont., containing.
a
According to the information provided by the manufacturers.

For each combination 16 specimens were bonded. Sub-

groups of eight bonded specimens were stored in water (37 ◦ C)
either for 3 days without thermal cycling or for 150 days with
37,500 thermal cycles from 5 to 55 ◦ C and from 55 to 5 ◦ C with
a dwell time of 30 s. The tensile bond strength was tested in
a universal testing apparatus (Zwick Z010/TN2A, Germany) at
a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min using a chain loop alignment
which provided a moment-free axial application [21].
The fractured interfaces on the zirconia ceramic speci-
mens were examined using a light microscope (Wild M 420,
Heerbrugg, Germany) at 30× magnification to calculate the
debonded area and to assign failure modes as either adhe-
sive or cohesive. Representative samples were examined in a
scanning electron microscope (SEM, XL 30 CP, Philips, Kassel,
Germany) with an acceleration voltage of 15 KeV after sput-
tering using a gold alloy conductive layer of approximately
30 nm. Statistical analyses of the test results were performed
by the Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.001) followed by multiple pair-
wise comparisons of the groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum
test.
3. Results
The mean and standard deviation of tensile bond strengths
(TBS) for the five cleaning groups and the two storage condi-
tions are shown in Table 2. Statistically significant differences
between the cleaning groups and the storage conditions are
indicated in the same table. The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a
significant influence (p < 0.001) of the cleaning method used as
well as of the storage times on the bond strength. The highest
bond strength was found for group AIR after 3 days ranging
from 40.4 to 61.4 MPa. It decreased statistically significantly
after storage time with thermal cycling ranging from 8.3 to
26.2 MPa.
Cleaning with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s twice (group
PH2) resulted in an initial bond strength ranging from 30 to
45 MPa. Storage led to a statistically significant decrease in ten-
sile bond strength (9–21.8 MPa).
Cleaning with 37% phosphoric acid for 60 s once (group PH1)
led to lower bond strength values than group PH2, initially

Fig. 1 – Test configuration. Alignment apparatus (left), thermal cycling apparatus (middle), and self-aligning debonding jig
with upper and lower rings for chain suspension (right).
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512 509

Table 2 – Tensile bond strength to zirconia ceramic after

surface contamination using four different cleaning
methods and two storage times. Medians, means and
standard deviations in MPa
Cleaning Storage time
method
3 days 150 days

Median Mean (S.D.) Median Mean (S.D.)

AIR 47.1 A␣ 49.9 (7.4) 20.9 A␤ 19.8 (5.3)

PH2 36.5 B␣ 37.2 (4.8) 14.1 B␤ 14.4 (4.0)
PH1 23.9 C␣ 23.6 (6.4) 11.5 B␤ 12.1 (4.4)
ALC 10.0 D␣ 8.2 (5.5) 0.0 C␤ 0.0
CTR 9.8 D␣ 6.6 (5.7) 0.0 C␤ 0.0

AIR, air-abraded with 50 ␮m Al2 O3 at 2.5 bar pressure (15 s); PH1,
cleaned with 37% phosphoric acid for 60 s; PH2, cleaned with 37%
Fig. 2 – Type of bonding failure mode as identified with a
phosphoric acid twice for each 30 s; ALC, cleaned in isopropanol
(96%); CTR, control group without cleaning. Storage time 3 days light microscope at 30× magnification and calculated in
was without thermal cycling, while storage time 150 days included percentage of the bonding area for all test methods after
37,000 thermal cycles. Within the same column, means with the different storage times. Group codes see Table 2.
same letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05). Within the same
row, means with the same Greek letter are not statistically different
p > 0.05. Global Kruskal–Wallis test followed by pair-wise compari-
son using the Wilcoxon test.
In groups ALC and CTC the failure modes were completely
adhesive for all specimens after 3 days and 150 days storage
time.
ranging from 14.7 to 32.2 MPa. It also decreased statistically SEM sample photographs of groups PH1 and PH2 demon-
significantly after storage time (7.4–20.4 MPa). strated a change in failure mode over storage time. After
The specimens cleaned in alcohol (group ALC) showed rel- storage over 150 days with thermal cycling, the failure mode
atively low initial bond strengths from 0 to 15.4 MPa. Three changed to mostly adhesive in group PH1 (about 60%), while
specimens debonded spontaneously during the storage of 3 in groups AIR and PH2 the portion of adhesive failures was
days. lower (about 25–50%). Figs. 3–5 show representative SEM pho-
No cleaning after contamination (group CTR) led to the low- tographs of the debonded ceramic surfaces after tensile test-
est bond strength values, initially ranging from 0 to 18.0 MPa. ing. The examination of typical samples in the SEM verified
After 3 days two specimens debonded spontaneously. During the failure modes detected with the light microscopic evalu-
the next 12 days storage time, all specimens of groups ALC ation (LM) in groups AIR, PH1 and PH2 (Figs. 3 and 4) and in
and CTR debonded spontaneously. Therefore, cleaning with groups ALC and CTR (Fig. 5).
alcohol and no cleaning in the control group resulted in a sta-
tistically significant decrease of bond strength compared to
the other cleaning methods after 3 and 150 days of storage
time, respectively.
Air abrasion of the zirconium oxide specimens with Al2 O3
increased the bond strength statistically significantly, but
it did not remain stable over storage time. Moreover, TBS
of group PH2 is statistically significantly higher than that
of group PH1 after 3 days storage. However, after 150 days
there was no statistically significant difference between TBS
of groups PH1 and PH2. In summary, the long-term stor-
age in water with thermal cycling led to a statistically
significant decrease in tensile bond strength for all test
groups.
The types of failure modes as assigned using the light
microscope at 30× magnification and calculated in percent-
ages of the bonding areas for all groups, are shown in
Fig. 2. Initially after 3 days of water storage the failure
mode was mostly cohesive in the tube filling composite Fig. 3 – Type of failure mode in group AIR after 3 days of
resin for groups AIR, PH1 and PH2. In group PH1 the per- storage time. A, very small part of adhesive failure from
centage of adhesive failure was about three times higher ceramic surface; C1, cohesive failure in Panavia F 2.0
than that in groups AIR and PH2. After 150 days storage composite resin cement; C2, cohesive failure in the tube
the percentage of adhesive failure increased in all groups. resin. SEM: 50× magnification.
510 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512

Fig. 4 – (a) Type of failure mode in group PH1 after 150 days of storage time and TC. A, adhesive failure from ceramic
surface; C1, cohesive failure in Panavia F 2.0 composite resin cement; C2, cohesive failure in the tube resin. SEM: 50×
magnification. (b) Detailed magnification of (a) part A. Air-abraded ceramic surface with only minimal coatings, which
points at an adhesive failure mode. SEM: 4000× magnification. (c) Detailed magnification of (a) part C1. Organic matrix could
be seen, which points to a cohesive failure in the composite resin. SEM: 1000× magnification. (d) Detailed magnification of
(a) part C1. There are bubbles seen from mixing the tube resin. SEM: 1000× magnification.

The standard deviations, as shown in Table 2, are about

4. Discussion
Storage time and cleaning methods have significant influ-
ences on the bond strength of zirconia ceramic with Panavia
F 2.0. It is in good agreement with the completely adhesive
failure modes of groups ALC and CTR after 3 and 150 days in
comparison to groups AIR, PH1 and PH2 with a mixed failure.
The failure mode of groups AIR, PH1 and PH2 was mostly cohe-
sive after 3 days as indicated by light microscopic evaluation
and confirmed in the SEM (Figs. 3 and 4). However after 150
days storage, there was a large percentage of cohesive fail-
ure (about 80%) only in group AIR. Therefore in this group the
decrease in bond strength after water storage with thermal
cycling was not caused mainly by a decrease in adhesive bond
strength but by a decrease in cohesive strength of the luting
resin itself.
15–20% for groups with high bond strength values and a high
percentage of cohesive failure (groups AIR and PH2 after 3 days
of storage), which is acceptable with eight samples in each
group. For groups with lower bond strength values and a high
percentage of adhesive failure, the standard deviations are a
little higher, which could be explained by the fracture phe-
nomena at the surface area of the samples. In addition, in
groups ALC and CTR some samples debonded spontaneously
during storage time. So, the TBS values of these samples are
0 MPa, which also increase the standard deviations of these
groups.
As the results of the present study show, it was not possi-
ble to achieve a durable long-term bond to the Cercon zirconia
ceramic without cleaning the surface after the use of a sili-
cone disclosing medium and saliva immersion. All specimens
without any cleaning (group CTR) showed low initial bond
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512
Fig. 5 – Type of failure mode in group ALC after 3 days of
storage time. No coating on the air-abraded surface is
visible, which indicates a completely adhesive failure
mode. This picture is also representative for the completely
adhesive failures in group CTR. SEM: 50× magnification.
strengths and debonded spontaneously within 12 days stor-
age time. Cleaning with alcohol did not reverse this effect. The
bond strength values of group ALC were comparable to the
results of group CTR. The failure mode was completely adhe-
sive for groups ALC and CTR. Therefore, the silicone disclosing
medium and saliva used in the present study seem to have left
an invisible thin residual organic film on the ceramic surface
that caused a dramatic decrease in bond strength in groups
ALC and CTR as compared to the other cleaning groups. The
silicone film remaining on the specimens might have acted as
a lubricant, inhibiting stable micromechanical retention and
stable chemical bonds, and alcohol cleaning for 15 s was not
effective to eliminate the silicon remnants and saliva on the
ceramic surface.
Cleaning with 37% phosphoric acid for 60 s once (group
PH1) initially resulted in bond strength values ranging from
15 to 32 MPa. However, there was a significant decrease
after storage time with thermal cycling accompanied by an
increase in adhesive failure mode (nearly 60%). Initially the
Kruskal–Wallis test revealed statistically significantly higher
bond strength values of group PH2 ranging from 30 to 45 MPa
compared to group PH1. However, after 150 days storage,
there was no significant difference for bond strengths of
groups PH1 and PH2, showing mean values ranging from 12 to
14 MPa.
In contrast to the current study, Szep et al. reported that the
use of glycerin as well as the use of fluid silicone led to a slight
but not a statistically significant decrease in bond strength,
when the silica ceramic specimens were acid etched with 9.5%
HF for 60 s. After 5000 thermal cycles the mean bond strengths
ranged from 7.5 to 9.9 MPa. The relatively low bond strength
values were explained by the choice of the composite resin
material which was designed to be used with ultrasound acti-
vation but was used without it in the experiment.
The resin bond strength values to zirconium oxide ceramic
presented in the literature vary between 3.4 and 61.0 MPa
depending on the testing equipment, resin cements, ceramic
511
systems, artificial aging methods and the surface conditioning
methods used in studies [22,23]. Only a few studies engag-
ing in the long-term resin bond to zirconia ceramics are cur-
rently available [14,15,24]. These studies confirm that a phos-
phate monomer containing composite resin is able to create
a durable chemical bond to metal-oxides such as aluminum
and zirconium oxide, which has already been stated years ago
[25]. In the present study conditioning the ceramic surface
with Al2 O3 was chosen as it was successfully used in other
studies, particularly concerning the long-term bond strength
of Panavia to zirconia ceramic [14,24,26].
The mean results of group AIR obtained in the present
study ranged from 40.4 to 61.4 MPa after 3 days, which con-
forms to the results of previous studies [14,15,24] with the
same test set-up after storage for 150 days with 37,500 TC using
Panavia 21 on zirconia ceramic. Similar results were found
using Panavia F to zirconia ceramic [27].
However, in the present study there was a statistically
significant decrease for the air-abraded specimens after 150
days storage time by using the latest Panavia version labeled
Panavia F 2.0. So, storage time with thermal cycling reduced
the cohesive strength of the composite resin itself because the
failure mode was still mainly cohesive. Such a degradation
within a composite resin itself has been previously shown to
occur with other composite resins [28,29]. This phenomenon
had been explained by the negative effects of the water on the
bonds between the resin matrix and the silanated fillers.
However in part, water ingress also seemed to diminish
the initial chemical bond of Panavia F 2.0 to zirconia ceramic
in groups AIR, PH1 and PH2 as the fracture modes changed
from primarily cohesive to a greater adhesive portion at the
ceramic surface in these groups (Fig. 4a). Based on the results
of the current study it might be concluded that Panavia F2.0
is not completely hydrolytically stable and lost its cohesive
strength during longer-term storage in water with thermal
cycling. Unfortunately, no other studies could be found in the
literature testing the long-term bond strength of Panavia F2.0
to zirconia ceramic.
5. Conclusions
Using a silicone disclosing medium and saliva immersion
severely impeded resin bonding to zirconia ceramic, while
cleaning in alcohol showed no positive effect. Storage time of
150 days with thermal cycling caused a statistically significant
reduction in bond strength for all five test groups.
Under the limitations of the study, the following conclu-
sions are drawn:
(1) Air-abrading the contaminated zirconia ceramic surface
led to significantly higher resin-ceramic bond strength val-
ues than cleaning the contaminated zirconia ceramic sur-
face with phosphoric acid or alcohol.
(2) After the use of a silicone disclosing medium and saliva
immersion, cleaning with alcohol or without any cleaning,
only very low initial bond strength was achieved. There-
fore, cleaning of the contaminated ceramic surface before
adhesive cementation is an indispensable step in order to
achieve a durable bond.
512 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 506–512
(3) In previous studies high and durable bond strengths
to zirconia ceramic were achieved with the phosphate
monomer containing composite resins Panavia 21 or
Panavia F, while in this study the usage of Panavia F2.0
exhibited a significant decrease in bond strength over stor-
age time. Therefore the clinical use of Panavia F2.0 for
long-term resin bonding to zirconia ceramic should be
evaluated in further studies.
references
[1] Dumfahrt H, Schäffer H. Porcelain laminate veneers. A
retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: Part II.
Clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:9–18.
[2] Blatz MB. Long-term clinical success of all-ceramic posterior
restorations. Quintessence Int 2002;33:415–26.
[3] Behr M, Leibrock A, Stich W, Rammelsberg P, Rosentritt M,
Handel G. Adhesive-fixed partial dentures in anterior and
posterior areas. Results of an on-going prospective study
begun in. Clin Oral Investig 1998;2:31–5.
[4] Kern M, Strub JR. Bonding to alumina ceramic in restorative
dentistry over up to five years. J Dent 1998;26:245–9.
[5] Kern M. Clinical long-term survival of two-retainer and
single-retainer all-ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial
dentures. Quintessence Int 2005;36:141–7.
[6] Malament KA, Socransky SS. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic
dental restorations over 14 years: part I. Survival of Dicor
complete coverage restorations and effect of internal
surface acid etching, tooth position, gender, and age. J
Prosthet Dent 1999;81:23–32.
[7] Malament KA, Socransky SS. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic
dental restorations over 14 years. Part II: effect of thickness
of Dicor material and design of tooth preparation. J Prosthet
Dent 1999;81:662–7.
[8] Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, Augthun M, Spiekermann H.
Fracture resistance of lithium disilicate-, alumina-, and
zirconia- based three-unit fixed partial dentures: a
laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:231–8.
[9] Burke FJT. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with
dentin-bonded crowns: The effect of increased tooth
preparation. Quintessence Int 1996;27:115–21.
[10] Kern M. Resin-bonded attachments for precision-retained
removable partial dentures. J Prosthodont 2001;10:187. Abstr
No 1.
[11] Pape FW, Pfeiffer P, Marx R. Haftfestigkeit von geätztem
In-Ceram an Zahnschmelz. Zahnärztl Welt 1991;100:
450–3.
[12] Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin-ceramic bonding: a review
of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:268–74.
[13] Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Adhesive cementation of
high-strength ceramic restorations: clinical and laboratory
guidelines. Quintessence Dent Technol 2003;26:47–55.
[14] Kern M, Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion
methods and their durability. Dent Mater 1998;14:64–71.
[15] Wegner S, Kern M. Long-term resin bond strength to
zirconia ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:139–45.
[16] Derand P, Derand T. Bond strength of luting cements to
zirconium oxide ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:131–5.
[17] Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Featherstone MJ. Oral fluid
contamination of etched enamel surfaces. An SEM study. J
Am Dent Assoc 1985;110:329–32.
[18] Nicholls JI. Tensile bond of resin cements to porcelain
veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:443–7.
[19] Szep S, Schmid C, Weigl P, Hahn L, Heidemann D. Effect of
the silicone disclosing procedure on the shear bond strength
of composite cements to ceramic restorations. J Prosthet
Dent 2003;89:60–5.
[20] Millstein PL, Ho JC, Naim W, Nathanson D. Effect of silicone
fit-indicator on crown retention in vitro. J Prosthet Dent
1989;62:510–1.
[21] 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;10:19–25.
[22] Hofmann N, Klaiber B, Heilmann O. Shear strength of
composite bonded to three ceramic materials. In:
International Symposium on Computer Restorations. State
of the Art of the CEREC-Method. Chicago: Quintessence,
Publ. Co; 1991. pp. 151–162.
[23] Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ, Torres TJ, Avera SP. Shear bond
strength of composite resin to porcelain. Int J Prosthodont
1991;4:17–23.
[24] Wegner SM, Gerdes W, Kern M. Effect of different artificial
aging conditions on ceramic/composite bond strength. Int J
Prosthodont 2002;15:267–72.
[25] Wada T. Development of a new adhesive material and its
properties. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Adhesive Prosthodontics. Chicago: Academy of Dental
Materials; 1986.
[26] Luthy H, Loeffel O, Hammerle CH. Effect of thermocycling on
bond strength of luting cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent
Mater 2006;22:195–200.
[27] Wolfart M, Lehmann F, Wolfart S, Kern M. Durability of the
resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic after using different
surface conditioning methods. Dent Mater 2007;23:
45–50.
[28] Söderholm K-JM, Roberts MJ. Influence of water exposure on
the tensile strength of composites. J Dent Res
1990;69:1812–6.
[29] Kern M, Thompson VP. Bonding to a glass infiltrated
alumina ceramic: Adhesion methods and their durability. J
Prosthet Dent 1995;73:240–9.