Effect of Different Universal Bonding Agent Procedures on Repair of Feldspathic and Hybrid Ceramics


INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, vol.35, no.3, pp.330-337, 2022 (Peer-Reviewed Journal) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 35 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.11607/ijp.7753
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, DIALNET
  • Page Numbers: pp.330-337


Purpose: To perform application of universal bonding agent based only on the manufacturer's instructions for CAD/CAM-manufactured feldspathic and hybrid ceramics and to investigate the bond strength of the composite resin to these ceramics. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 samples (2-mm thickness) were obtained from three different CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramics each: a feldspathic ceramic (Vitablocs Mark II), a hybrid ceramic (Cerasmart, GC), and a dual-network ceramic (Vita Enamic). Each of these restorative materials was divided into six subgroups (n = 20 each) in order to apply universal adhesives: All-Bond Each bonding agent was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Microshear bond strength test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests were used for statistical analyses. Results: The data suggested a significant impact of bonding agent on all restorative materials applied (P < .001); however, only Prime&Bond demonstrated different effects between materials, with a significant difference between Vitablocs Mark II and Cerasmart restorative materials (P = .001). Conclusion: All universal bonding agents provided an acceptable bond strength for each ceramic. Since different universal bonding agents affected the bond strength between ceramics and composite resin, selecting the most suitable bonding agent for each material will increase the bond strength and clinical success.