Is the adhesive or mechanical behavior of glass ceramics influenced by the adhesive layer application after etching and silanization? A literature review

Abstract

Aim

This review investigated the effect of applying an adhesive after surface treatment of glass-ceramics on the bonding, mechanical or clinical behavior.

Methods

Studies comparing the adhesive, mechanical or clinical behavior of glass-ceramics, with or without adhesive application after surface treatment, were included. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases (January 2022), resulting in 15 included studies.

Results

Regarding the evaluated outcomes, 13 studies assessed bond strength, 2 studies assessed biaxial flexural strength and 1 study assessed fatigue failure load, while no study evaluating clinical outcomes was included. It was possible to observe that the adhesive application after ceramic surface treatment was unfavorable or did not influence the evaluated outcomes.

Conclusion

Most of the evidence available in the literature shows that the adhesive application after surface treatment does not improve the adhesive and mechanical behavior of glass-ceramics.

Dental adhesives; Ceramics

Introduction

Dental ceramics can currently be classified into three categories according to their composition: glass-matrix ceramics (glass-ceramics): non-metallic inorganic ceramic materials containing glass phase; polycrystalline ceramics: non-metallic inorganic ceramic materials without glass phase; and resin-matrix ceramics: polymeric matrix containing inorganic compounds, which may include glass-ceramics¹.

Glass-ceramics have been widely used for indirect restorations since they combine excellent physical and chemical properties and present excellent esthetics²,³. In addition to choosing the glass-ceramic according to the clinical indication, another fundamental factor for the longevity of ceramic restorations is the use of an adequate protocol of adhesive luting⁴. The conventional protocol for glass-ceramics includes etching the ceramic surface with hydrofluoric acid (HF), which selectively attacks the glassy phase and exposes the silicon dioxide (SiO₂), causing morphological changes that contribute to micromechanical retention of the resin cement to the material⁵-⁷; and the application of the silane coupling agent, which chemically reacts with the exposed silicon dioxide and promotes a chemical bond between the ceramic and the resin cement⁸,⁹.

For adequate restoration behavior, it is essential that the surface irregularities resulting from the etching of HF are completely filled in by the resin cement, since unfilled spaces at the adhesive interface can negatively influence the performance of ceramic restorations¹⁰. In this sense, studies have suggested applying an adhesive layer on the ceramic surface before applying resin cement¹¹-¹⁴. This adhesive layer could improve the wettability of the ceramic surface, as its viscosity is lower than that of the resin cement, which would facilitate the filling of irregularities.

However, there are still conflicting statements in the literature about the use of an adhesive after ceramic surface treatment, which makes it difficult to define an ideal technique. Although Nogueira et al¹⁵ (2021) showed that the application of an adhesive layer on glass-ceramics after surface treatment does not improve the bond strength values, an updated synthesis of the literature addressing other outcomes becomes relevant. Thus, the aim of the present review was to investigate the effect of applying an adhesive after surface treatment of glass-ceramics on the adhesive, mechanical or clinical behavior.

Materials and methods

Focused question

Does the application of an adhesive after surface treatment improve the adhesive, mechanical or clinical behavior of glass-ceramics?

PICOs

This literature review adopted the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes process (i.e. the “PICOs” process), as follows:

Population: Glass-ceramics.

Intervention: Adhesive layer application.

Comparison: Non-adhesive layer application.

Outcomes: Adhesive, mechanical and clinical behavior.

Study design: In vitro and clinical studies.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

Studies in dentistry which considered the adhesive, mechanical or clinical behavior of all glass-ceramics cemented using adhesive strategies were selected (i.e. ceramics used as intra radicular posts, or at implant abutment or pillar contexts were not considered). Studies comparing the adhesive, mechanical or clinical behavior of glass-ceramics, with or without adhesive application after surface treatment, regardless of the glass-ceramic used (e.g., feldspathic, leucite, lithium disilicate, lithium silicate, among others), the processing method for ceramic manufacturing (layering, pressing, or CAD/CAM techniques, among others), bond strength methodology (shear, micro-shear, tensile, micro-tensile, among others), mechanical property measured (strength, hardness, toughness, among others), regardless of the testing method (monotonic, fatigue, among others) and clinical outcome were included. All existing in vitro or clinical studies on such themes were included regarding the adopted study design.

Exclusion criteria

Studies which did not adopt ceramic surface pretreatment including HF etching and application of silane coupling agent were excluded.

Search

The PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were consulted, without date restriction (last executed on January 10, 2022). The search strategy (Table 1) was based on the Mesh terms and the specific free-text terms of PubMed, which were then adapted, if necessary, for the other databases.

Table 1
Search strategy.

PubMed
(“ceramics” [Mesh] OR ceramic [tiab] OR “dental porcelain” [Mesh] OR porcelain [tiab] OR Glass ceramic [tiab] OR Feldspathic [tiab] OR Lithium disilicate [tiab] OR lithium silicate [tiab] OR Leucite [tiab]) AND (adhesives [MeSH] OR “tissue adhesives” [MeSH] OR “dentin-bonding agents” [MeSH] OR dentin bonding [tiab] OR bonding agent [tiab] OR dental adhesive system [tiab] OR luting strategies [tiab]) AND (Adhesion [tiab] OR Bond strength [tiab] OR “Survival Rate”[Mesh] OR Clinical survival [tiab] OR clinical performance [tiab] OR mechanical behavior [tiab] OR mechanical properties [tiab] OR “Fatigue” [Mesh] OR Fatigue [tiab] OR load bearing OR Fracture strength [tiab] OR failure load [tiab] OR Resistance [tiab] OR compression [tiab] OR retention [tiab] OR tensile [tiab])
Web of Science
TS=(ceramic OR porcelain OR Glass ceramic OR Feldspathic OR Lithium disilicate OR lithium silicate OR Leucite) AND TS=(adhesives OR dentin bonding OR bonding agent OR dental adhesive system OR luting strategies) AND TS=(Adhesion OR Bond strength OR Survival Rate OR Clinical survival OR clinical performance OR mechanical behavior OR mechanical properties OR Fatigue OR load bearing OR Fracture strength OR failure load OR Resistance OR compression OR retention OR tensile) AND SU= (Dentistry) NOT TS=(review)
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“ceramic” OR “porcelain” OR “Glass ceramic” OR “Feldspathic” OR “Lithium disilicate” OR “lithium silicate” OR “Leucite”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“adhesives” OR “dentin bonding” OR “bonding agent” OR “dental adhesive system” OR “luting strategies”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Adhesion” OR “Bond strength” OR “Survival Rate” OR “Clinical survival” OR “clinical performance” OR “mechanical behavior” OR “mechanical properties” OR “Fatigue” OR “load bearing” OR “Fracture strength” OR “failure load” OR “Resistance” OR “compression” OR “retention” OR “tensile”) AND NOT (“review”) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA,”DENT” ) )

Screening

Screening was performed using a reference manager (EndNote X9, Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) by two independent researchers (H.C.V. and P.S.M.). First, titles and abstracts were analyzed for relevance and the presence of the eligibility criteria and then classified as included, excluded or uncertain. The full text of the studies included in the first phase was analyzed again in a second moment regarding the eligibility criteria by the same two reviewers mentioned above (acting independently). Discrepancies in the review of titles/abstracts and full text were resolved by discussion.

Data collection

The following data were collected in a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel, Redmond, WA): year of publication, country of origin, type of vitreous ceramic, adhesive system, cementing agent, aging protocol, evaluated outcome / type of test, predominant failure type and main result in relation to the use of adhesive (favorable to the outcome, no difference or unfavorable).

Data analysis

Data were summarized in tables and figures in order to describe the main characteristics of the included studies.

Results

A total of 3,133 studies were initially identified. Then, a total of 40 studies were considered eligible for full-text evaluation after removing duplicates and evaluating titles and abstracts, of which 15 were included for qualitative analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Study selection diagram.

Table 2 presents a qualitative synthesis of the articles included in the review. The articles included were published between 2003 and 2021, with most of them published from 2015 onwards and by Brazilian authors. A total of 13 commercial adhesive brands were evaluated. All studies that met the criteria were in vitro studies, without clinical studies entering the final review. It was possible to observe that the adhesive application after ceramic surface treatment was unfavorable or at least did not influence the evaluated outcomes regarding the adhesive and mechanical behavior of glass-ceramics, except for particular groups in non-aged regimes¹²,¹⁶,¹⁷.

Table 2
Descriptive synthesis of the included studies.

Author (year)	Country	Type of glass-ceramic	Adhesive system	Resin Cement	Aging	Outcome evaluated/ type of test	Predominant failure type	Results*
El Zohairy et al.12 (2003)	Netherlands	Feldspathic	Syntac OptiBond Solo Plus Scotchbond	Tetric flow Nexus 2 RelyX ARC	24h	Bond strength/ Microtensile	Adhesive	+ for OptiBond = for Syntac and Scotchbond
El Zohairy et al.18 (2004)	Netherlands	Feldspathic	Syntac OptiBond Solo Plus Visio Bond	Tetric flow Nexus 2	1 day, 7 days and 28 days.	Bond strength/ Microtensile	Adhesive	- ou =
Peumans et al.19(2007)	Japan	Leucite	Heliobond	Variolink II	24h	Bond strength/ Microtensile	Adhesive	=
Meng et al.20(2008)	Japan	Leucite	Heliobond	Variolink II	24h or 10,000 cycles of TC.	Bond strength/ Microshear	Mixed	-
Passos et al.21(2008)	Brazil	Feldspathic	Scotchbond	Variolink II	Immediate or 12,000 cycles of TC+ 50 days of storage	Bond strength/ Microtensile	Mixed	-
Lise et al.22(2015)	Brazil	Lithium disilicate	ExciTE F DSC	Variolink II Multilink Automix RelyX Unicem 2	24h	Bond strength/ Microshear	Adhesive	=
Elsayed et al.23(2017)	Germany	Lithium disilicate	Scotchbond Universal; OptiBond XRT; All Bond Universal; Prime e Bond NT	Variolink Esthetic DC RelyX Ultimate NX 3 Calibra Esthetic	3 days, 30 days and 7500 cycles of TC or 150 days 37,500 cycles of TC	Bond strength/ Tensile	Cohesive	=
Murillo-Gómez et al.13(2017)	Brazil	Lithium disilicate	Single Bond Plus; Scotchbond Universal	RelyX Ultimate	24h or 6 months	Bond strength/ Microshear	Cohesive	=
Ataol and Ergun24 (2018)	Turkey	Lithium disilicate Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate	Clearfil Universal Bond	Clearfil Majesty ES-2	24h or 5,000 cycles of TC	Bond strength/ Shear	Adhesive	-
Romanini-Junior et al.16(2018)	Brazil	Lithium disilicate	XP Bond; Scotchbond Universal	SureFil SDR Flow	24h and 12 months	Bond strength/ Microshear	Adhesive	+ in 24h - or = in 12 months
Barbon et al.17(2019)	Brazil	Feldspathic	Adper Single Bond 2	RelyX Veneer and 3 experimental resin cements	Immediate	Bond strength/ Microtensile	Mixed	= or + depending on resin cement.
						Flexural strength/ Biaxial	Fracture	= or - depending on resin cement.
Chen et al.25(2019)	China	Lithium disilicate	Single Bond Plus; All Bond Universal	RelyX Veneer Clearfil AS Luting RelyX Unicem	24h or 20,000 cycles of TC and 120 days of storage	Bond strength/ Shear	Mixed	+
Murillo-Gómez et al.26(2019)	Brazil	Lithium disilicate	Adper Single Bond Plus; Single Bond Universal	RelyX Ultimate	24h	Flexural strength/ Biaxial	Fracture	=
Tribst et al.27 (2019)	Brazil	Lithium disilicate	Single Bond Universal; Multilink N Primer A and B	Multilink N	24h up to a maximum of 7 days	Fatigue failure load/ Staircase test	Radial crack	=
Südbeck et al.28 (2021)	Germany	Leucite or Lithium disilicate	Scotchbond Universal	Variolink Esthetic DC RelyX Ultimate	24h or 6 months	Bond strength/ Microtensile	Mixed	-

• * + the use of adhesive was favorable to the outcome; - the use of adhesive was unfavorable to the outcome; = the use of adhesive was not altered to the outcome.
• TC= thermocycling.

Discussion

The longevity of the adhesion of resin materials to glass-ceramics is associated with a correct treatment of the ceramic surface²⁹. Conventional surface treatment involving HF etching and silanization is well established for glass-ceramics³⁰,³¹. However, modifications have been suggested, such as the application of an adhesive after ceramic surface treatment¹⁵. In addition, based on the data of this review, this additional step does not seem to improve the adhesive and mechanical behavior of glass-ceramics, since the results in most studies were similar or worse than conventional treatment.

Only four studies showed favorable results from the adhesive application for the bond strength outcome¹²,¹⁶,¹⁷,²⁵. However, the results of El Zohairy et al.¹² (2003) were only favorable for the OptiBond adhesive, while the results for the Syntac and Scotchbond adhesives were similar to the control, with the authors justifying this fact due to the greater filler content in the OptiBond adhesive. The results found by Romanini-Junior et al.¹⁶ (2018) were in favor of adhesive layer application only when tested after 24h, which was not maintained after 12 months of storage, since the hydrophilic characteristic of the adhesives used favors hydrolytic degradation over time. For Barbon et al.¹⁷ (2019), the adhesive layer application favors the bond strength values when associated with experimental resin cements of higher viscosity, as they facilitate filling in irregularities by HF etching on the ceramic surface.

A common characteristic among the studies in which the adhesive layer application was unfavorable to the outcome²⁰,²¹,²⁸ is the hydrophilicity of the adhesives used. The adhesives are present in hydrophobic or hydrophilic form, with the latter being characterized by its affinity for water. Water absorption is influenced by the material’s affinity for water and by the amount of hydroxyl groups (OH) in the resin matrix , which form hydrogen bonds with water, favoring water absorption and consequently worsening adhesion over time³². In this sense, applying an adhesive with hydrophilic properties on the ceramic surface can make the adhesive interface more susceptible to hydrolytic degradation over time.

It is important to highlight that restorative materials are exposed to the presence of moisture, chewing loads, changes in temperature and pH in the oral environment³³. These factors tend to degrade the adhesive interface over time. In this sense, it is important that this degradation is simulated in in vitro studies through the storage and/or thermocycling of the specimens³⁴. Some kind of aging protocol was used in most of the included studies in the present review, demonstrating the authors’ concern in this regard. However, especially in studies that showed no influence of the adhesive application after ceramic surface treatment, the specimens were not subjected to aging protocols, and consequently the results may have been overestimated. Therefore, they must be interpreted with caution.

In addition, when it comes to adhesion tests, it is known that micro tests are the most reliable since they tend to include a smaller number of defects in the substrate or at the bond interface³⁵. Most of the included articles adopted microshear or microtensile tests, demonstrating the authors’ concern with this point. In observing the overall findings, the adhesion test methodology did not influence the results’ trends. Another important point in relation to adhesion studies is the presence of a careful analysis regarding the types of failure found (adhesive, mixed or cohesive) and their relationship with the findings³⁴. In this context, all included studies presented such analyzes.

Mechanical outcomes were only evaluated by 3 studies¹⁷,²⁶,³⁶. Flexural strength data were obtained from the biaxial tests using ceramic discs resin-cement coated¹⁷,²⁶. The data regarding fatigue failure load data come from simplified restorations (ceramic discs cemented on a supporting substrate) subjected to cyclic fatigue³⁶. In both studies the adhesive application did not improve the mechanical outcomes, yet more studies employing these methodologies are encouraged due to the scarce available evidence.

Universal adhesives (UAs) were the most used adhesives in the studies (Table 2). UAs were launched with the purpose of simplifying the adhesive technique, and can be used on dental substrates with or without acid etching, in addition to promoting adhesion to different substrates due to the presence of methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) monomers and silane incorporation in their composition³⁷-⁴⁰. In silane-containing UAs, manufacturers suggest that the adhesive can replace silane application after HF etching on glass-ceramics¹⁶. However, studies show that the amount of silane present in the UAs would not be enough to replace the application of a silane layer⁹,¹⁶,⁴¹. One of the inclusion criteria required in the present review was that there were comparison groups (HF + Silane) X (HF + Silane + Adhesive); thus, studies which only applied UAs were not included. In this sense, application of silane-containing UAs would add an additional layer of silane, but there was no improvement in the bond strength values¹⁶,²⁴.

Adhesive technique is an extremely sensitive procedure and subject to operator experience and skill⁴²,⁴³. Therefore, the inclusion of additional steps such as the adhesive application after ceramic surface treatment can make the procedure even more complex and subject to operator errors. In addition, in view of most of the available evidence demonstrating that application of an adhesive layer was unfavorable or without influence on the evaluated outcomes, this may be a dispensable step.

The aim of the present review was to perform a qualitative synthesis of the studies available in the literature, but a quantitative synthesis and risk of bias analysis of the studies were not performed. In addition, all included studies were laboratory studies, since only this design is able to evaluate adhesive outcomes in an isolated form. Clinical studies may evaluate the survival rate of dental restorations with a higher level of evidence; however, such an outcome may be influenced at the same time by cyclic loads, wear and/or parafunction habits, which may generate cracks and fractures. Therefore, extrapolating the results of in vitro studies to the clinical practice should be done with caution. Another important point is how the application of an adhesive could influence the adaptation of indirect ceramic restorations, however the lack of evidence on the subject makes the discussion difficult. The absence of clinical studies on the subject until this time impairs being able to indicate the application of an adhesive after surface treatment of glass-ceramics. In this sense, the conduction of clinical studies and studies of mechanical properties within the theme is suggested.

In conclusion, most of the evidence available in the literature demonstrates that the adhesive application after surface treatment does not improve the adhesive or mechanical behavior of glass-ceramics. However, the literature still lacks clinical studies on the subject.

References

• ¹
  Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015 May-Jun;28(3):227-35. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4244.
  » https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4244
• ²
  Ritzberger C, Apel E, Höland W, Peschke A, Rheinberger VM. Properties and clinical application of three types of dental glass-ceramics and ceramics for CAD-CAM technologies. Materials (Basel). 2010 Jun;3(6):3700-13. doi: 10.3390/ma3063700.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3063700
• ³
  Montazerian M, Zanotto ED. Bioactive and inert dental glass-ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Feb;105(2):619-39. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35923.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35923
• ⁴
  Valenti M, Valenti A. Retrospective survival analysis of 261 lithium disilicate crowns in a private general practice. Quintessence Int. 2009 Jul-Aug;40(7):573-9.
• ⁵
  Brentel AS, Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Alarça LG, Amaral R, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions. Dent Mater. 2007 Nov;23(11):1323-31. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.011.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.011
• ⁶
  Prochnow C, Venturini AB, Grasel R, Gundel A, Bottino MC, Valandro LF. Adhesion to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic etched with hydrofluoric acid at distinct concentrations. Braz Dent J. 2018 Sep-Oct;29(5):492-9. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201802080.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201802080
• ⁷
  Venturini AB, Prochnow C, Rambo D, Gundel A, Valandro LF. Effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration on resin adhesion to a feldspathic ceramic. J Adhes Dent. 2015 Aug;17(4):313-20. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a34592.
  » https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a34592
• ⁸
  Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003 Dec;19(8):725-31. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00019-8.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00019-8
• ⁹
  Kalavacharla VK, Lawson NC, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. Influence of etching protocol and silane treatment with a universal adhesive on lithium disilicate bond strength. Oper Dent. 2015 Jul-Aug;40(4):372-8. doi: 10.2341/14-116-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/14-116-L
• ¹⁰
  Venturini AB, Prochnow C, Pereira GKR, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ, Valandro LF. The effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration on the fatigue failure load of adhesively cemented feldspathic ceramic discs. Dent Mater. 2018 Apr;34(4):667-75. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.01.010.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.01.010
• ¹¹
  Sundfeld Neto D, Naves LZ, Costa AR, Correr AB, Consani S, Borges GA, et al. The Effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration on the bond strength and morphology of the surface and interface of glass ceramics to a resin cement. Oper Dent. 2015 Sep-Oct;40(5):470-9. doi: 10.2341/14-133-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/14-133-L
• ¹²
  El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater. 2003 Nov;19(7):575-83. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00107-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00107-0
• ¹³
  Murillo-Gómez F, Rueggeberg FA, De Goes MF. Short- and long-term bond strength between resin cement and glass-ceramic using a silane-containing universal adhesive. Oper Dent. 2017 Sep/Oct;42(5):514-25. doi: 10.2341/16-211-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/16-211-L
• ¹⁴
  Naves LZ, Soares CJ, Moraes RR, Gonçalves LS, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Surface/interface morphology and bond strength to glass ceramic etched for different periods. Oper Dent. 2010 Jul-Aug;35(4):420-7. doi: 10.2341/09-152-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/09-152-L
• ¹⁵
  Nogueira IO, Oliveira PFG, Magno MB, Ferreira DMTP, Maia LC, Rabello TB. Does the application of an adhesive layer improve the bond strength of etched and silanized glass-ceramics to resin-based materials? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jan;125(1):56-64. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.005.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.005
• ¹⁶
  Romanini-Junior JC, Kumagai RY, Ortega LF, Rodrigues JA, Cassoni A, Hirata R, et al. Adhesive/silane application effects on bond strength durability to a lithium disilicate ceramic. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Jul;30(4):346-51. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12387.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12387
• ¹⁷
  Barbon FJ, Moraes RR, Isolan CP, Spazzin AO, Boscato N. Influence of inorganic filler content of resin luting agents and use of adhesive on the performance of bonded ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Dec;122(6):566.e1-566.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.09.013.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.09.013
• ¹⁸
  El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Hassan FM, Feilzer AJ. The effect of adhesives with various degrees of hydrophilicity on resin ceramic bond durability. Dent Mater. 2004 Oct;20(8):778-87. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.010.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.010
• ¹⁹
  Peumans M, Hikita K, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, et al. Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. J Dent. 2007 Apr;35(4):282-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.09.006.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.09.006
• ²⁰
  Meng X, Yoshida K, Atsuta M. Microshear bond strength of resin bonding systems to machinable ceramic with different surface treatments. J Adhes Dent. 2008 Jun;10(3):189-96.
• ²¹
  Passos SP, Valandro LF, Amaral R, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Kimpara ET. Does adhesive resin application contribute to resin bond durability on etched and silanized feldspathic ceramic? J Adhes Dent. 2008 Dec;10(6):455-60
• ²²
  Lise DP, Perdigão J, Van Ende A, Zidan O, Lopes GC. Microshear bond strength of resin cements to lithium disilicate substrates as a function of surface preparation. Oper Dent. 2015 Sep-Oct;40(5):524-32. doi: 10.2341/14-240-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/14-240-L
• ²³
  Elsayed A, Younes F, Lehmann F, Kern M. Tensile bond strength of so-called universal primers and universal multimode adhesives to zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(3):221-8. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a38436.
  » https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38436.
• ²⁴
  Ataol AS, Ergun G. Effects of surface treatments on repair bond strength of a new CAD/CAM ZLS glass ceramic and two different types of CAD/CAM ceramics. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(2):201-211. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.17-0109.
  » https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.17-0109
• ²⁵
  Chen B, Lu Z, Meng H, Chen Y, Yang L, Zhang H, et al. Effectiveness of pre-silanization in improving bond performance of universal adhesives or self-adhesive resin cements to silica-based ceramics: chemical and in vitro evidences. Dent Mater. 2019 Apr;35(4):543-53. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.010.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.010
• ²⁶
  Murillo-Gómez F, Wanderley RB, De Goes MF. Impact of silane-containing universal adhesive on the biaxial flexural strength of a resin cement/glass-ceramic system. Oper Dent. 2019 Mar/Apr;44(2):200-9. doi: 10.2341/17-356-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/17-356-L
• ²⁷
  Tribst JPM, Monteiro JB, Venturini AB, Pereira GKR, Bottino MA, Melo RM, et al. Fatigue failure load of resin-bonded simplified lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations: effect of ceramic conditioning methods. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(4):373-81. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a43000.
  » https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43000.
• ²⁸
  Südbeck JM, Jacker-Guhr S, Lührs AK. Do different pretreatment methods influence the microtensile bond strength of composite cements to silicate ceramic? J Adhes Dent. 2021 Jul;23(4):335-345. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b1650153.
  » https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1650153.
• ²⁹
  Edelhoff D, Ozcan M. To what extent does the longevity of fixed dental prostheses depend on the function of the cement? Working Group 4 materials: cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Jun;18 Suppl 3:193-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01442.x. Erratum in: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):326-8.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01442.x
• ³⁰
  Lührs AK, De Munck J, Geurtsen W, Van Meerbeek B. Composite cements benefit from light-curing. Dent Mater. 2014 Mar;30(3):292-301. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.11.012.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.11.012
• ³¹
  El-Damanhoury HM, Gaintantzopoulou MD. Self-etching ceramic primer versus hydrofluoric acid etching: Etching efficacy and bonding performance. J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Jan;62(1):75-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.002.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.002
• ³²
  Meyer Filho A, Vieira LC, Araújo E, Monteiro Júnior S. Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength. J Prosthodont. 2004 Mar;13(1):28-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04007.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04007.x
• ³³
  Denry I, Holloway JA. Ceramics for dental applications: a review. Materials (Basel). 2010 Jan;3(1):351-68. doi: 10.3390/ma3010351.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3010351
• ³⁴
  Armstrong S, Breschi L, Özcan M, Pfefferkorn F, Ferrari M, Van Meerbeek B. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent Mater. 2017 Feb;33(2):133-43. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.015.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.015
• ³⁵
  Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e50-62. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155
• ³⁶
  Tribst JPM, Monteiro JB, Venturini AB, Pereira GKR, Bottino MA, Melo RM, et al. Fatigue Failure Load of Resin-bonded Simplified Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic Restorations: Effect of Ceramic Conditioning Methods. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(4):373-81. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a43000.
  » https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43000.
• ³⁷
  Cardenas A, Siqueira F, Rocha J, Szesz A, Anwar M, El-Askary F, et al. Influence of conditioning time of universal adhesives on adhesive properties and enamel-etching pattern. Oper Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):481-90. doi: 10.2341/15-213-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/15-213-L
• ³⁸
  Muñoz M, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P, Hass V, Reis A, Campanha N, et al. In vitro longevity of bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent. 2015 May-Jun;40(3):282-92. doi: 10.2341/14-055-L.
  » https://doi.org/10.2341/14-055-L
• ³⁹
  Tsuchiya K, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsubota K, Tsujimoto A, Berry TP, et al. Effect of a functional monomer (MDP) on the enamel bond durability of single-step self-etch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 2016 Feb;124(1):96-102. doi: 10.1111/eos.12232.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12232
• ⁴⁰
  Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res. 2004 Jun;83(6):454-8. doi: 10.1177/154405910408300604.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300604
• ⁴¹
  Cardenas AM, Siqueira F, Hass V, Malaquias P, Gutierrez MF, Reis A, et al. Effect of MDP-containing silane and adhesive used alone or in combination on the long-term bond strength and chemical interaction with lithium disilicate ceramics. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(3):203-12. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a38414.
  » https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38414
• ⁴²
  Shafiei F, Dehghani Z, Jowkar Z. The influence of the operator’s experience on the microleakage of two universal adhesives. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021 Dec;7(6):951-6. doi: 10.1002/cre2.458.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.458
• ⁴³
  Scotti N, Comba A, Gambino A, Manzon E, Breschi L, Paolino D, et al. Influence of operator experience on non-carious cervical lesion restorations: clinical evaluation with different adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 2016 Feb;29(1):33-8.

• Data availability
  Datasets related to this article will be available upon request from the corresponding author.

Edited by

Editor: Altair A. Del Bel Cury

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  19 Apr 2022
• Accepted
  11 July 2022