Next Article in Journal
Selective Laser Sintering of Polymers: Process Parameters, Machine Learning Approaches, and Future Directions
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Drilling Parameters on Surface Roughness and Delamination of Ramie–Bamboo-Reinforced Natural Hybrid Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMMP
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/jmmp8050196
jmmp-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Multiple-Time Applications of Metal Primers Containing 10-MDP on the Repair Strength of Base Metal Alloys to Resin Composite

by
Awiruth Klaisiri
1,
Chanakan Paaopanchon
1,* and
Boonlert Kukiattrakoon
2
1
Division of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand
2
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2024, 8(5), 196; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050196
Submission received: 20 July 2024 / Revised: 28 August 2024 / Accepted: 10 September 2024 / Published: 10 September 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This experimental study was performed to assess whether applying a metal primer containing 10-MDP multiple times affected the repair shear bonding ability of base metal alloys to resin composites. Ten base metal alloys were randomly assigned to each group in the manner described, following multiple applications of a metal primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus), namely one to five applications, and no primer application as a negative control. On the specimens’ prepared surfaces, the resin composite was pushed into the mold and then light-activated for 40 s. The bonded samples were kept for 24 h at 37 °C in distilled water in an incubator. The shear bond strength was determined using a universal testing device. A stereomicroscope was used to determine the debonded surface. The one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were implemented to statistically analyze. The lowest shear bond strength was found in group 6 (6.14 ± 1.12 MPa), demonstrating a significant difference (p = 0.000) when compared to groups 1 to 5. The shear bond strength of group 3 was highest at 21.49 ± 1.33 MPa; there was no significant difference between group 3 and groups 4 and 5 (20.21 ± 2.08 MPa and 20.98 ± 2.69 MPa, respectively) (p = 0.773, p = 1.000, respectively). All fractured specimens in groups 1, 2, and 6 were identified as adhesive failure. Groups 3 and 4 exhibited the highest percentage of mixed failures. To achieve the repair shear bonding ability of base metal alloys to resin composites, the sandblasted base metal alloys should be coated with three applications of a metal primer before applying the adhesive agent.

1. Introduction

Parafunctional behaviors, trauma, insufficient tooth preparation, or occlusal adjustment can all lead to fractured porcelain fused to metal restorations [1]. Base metal alloys emerge as a result of complex failures, which might be caused by mismatched linear thermal expansion coefficients in the metal and porcelain, defective design, or faults in the metal–porcelain interface [2]. Recent advancements in material characteristics have prompted a rise in the usage of light-cured resin materials. Resin composites have improved intraoral repair effectiveness, appealing aesthetics, and mechanical qualities [3]. In some situations, when base metal alloys are exposed, emergency repairs can be performed using a light-cured resin composite [4]. A resin composite for intraoral repair can be an excellent choice because of its improved aesthetics, simplicity of application, and color stability [4,5]. The repair using resin composites should be preceded by a surface treatment program for base metal alloys. In addition, base metal alloys remain attached to resin composites throughout the repair process via micromechanical retention, abrasion with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [5], and chemical adhesion utilizing metal primers [4,5]. There are three principal approaches to increasing base metal alloys’ repair bond strength: (a) micromechanical retention, sandblasting with Al2O3 particles; (b) chemical adhesion, applying a metal primer or universal adhesive; and (c) both micromechanical retention and chemical adhesion [4].
The functional monomers found in adhesion systems have an impact on the manner in which the resin composite bonds to base metal alloys. These include the following: (a) 4-methacryloyloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride (4-META) is a carboxylate functional monomer that consists of two carboxylic groups connected to aromatic groups, giving it acidic characteristics, increased wettability, and a stronger bond to base metal alloys [6]; (b) 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) is a phosphate functional monomer that basically has an etching molecular structure because of the dihydrogen group of phosphate and capacity for creating ionic bonds [7,8]; and (c) other monomers that are associated with phosphate groups, like the 6-methacryloyloxyhexyl phosphonoacetate (6-MHPA) monomer [9,10]. The metal primers that are commonly used include phosphate monomers like 10-MDP and carboxylic monomers like 4-META. The presence of these monomers in metal primers that are sold commercially has been shown to be beneficial in strengthening the connection to base metal alloys and resin materials [11,12]. Metal primers are functional monomers that dissolve in a solvent. Three parts constitute the structure of metal primers: (a) a polymerizable group that is able to react throughout polymerization; (b) an adhesion-promoting group that is capable of binding to the chemical connection and can be composed of a carboxylate, phosphate, or sulfur atom; and (c) a connecting group that serves as a bridge between the adhesion-promoting group and the polymerizable functional group, allowing base metal alloys and tooth structure to be bonded to carboxylate or phosphate-containing monomers [13,14]. Prior research has demonstrated that base metal alloy adhesion to resin materials can be enhanced by using metal primers containing phosphate monomers [4,11,12,13]. The oxide layer in base metal alloys as well as surface wettability were enhanced when sandblasting was performed, which allowed phosphate monomers to form chemical linkages with the oxide layer in the base metal alloys [4,11].
In several investigations, the bonding ability of base metal alloys was demonstrated to be increased by applying a metal primer only once during the bonding process [4,11,12,13]. The chemical bonding of the base metal alloys may benefit from a higher concentration of functional monomer after numerous applications of metal primer. However, studies examining the potential effects of multiple-time applications of metal primers on the adhesion properties of base metal alloys to resin composites have not been conducted. Consequently, the main focus of this experiment was to assess whether applying a metal primer containing 10-MDP multiple times affected the repair shear bonding ability of base metal alloys to resin composites. The null hypothesis of this research stated that the repair shear bond strength (SBS) of base metal alloys to resin composites would not be affected by the multiple-time applications of metal primers containing 10-MDP.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Base Metal Alloys’ Preparation

Sixty base metal alloy rod specimens, sized 10.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in height, were used in this randomized control group investigation (72% nickel; 15% chromium; 9% molybdenum; 2% aluminum; 1.8% beryllium; and <3% of iron, silicon, and carbon; Prep Lab, Bangkok, Thailand) (Figure 1). Using porcelain fused to metal restorations, we were able to replicate the base metal alloy structure using this metal.
Each specimen was initially set with epoxy resin within a polyvinyl chloride pipe. The surfaces of the specimens were cleaned using ultrasonic washing for 20 min in distilled water after polishing them on abrasive paper made of 600 grit silicon carbide (RS Components Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand). For five seconds, at an air pressure of 6 Atm perpendicular to the specimen surface, base metal alloy samples were abraded with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) containing 50 μm particles [15] (A10723 Base 3, Dental Vision Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand). The sandblasted material on the specimens was rinsed off with running water. The samples were cleaned using ultrasonic equipment for 20 min while submerged in distilled water.

2.2. Chemical Surface Treatment of Base Metal Alloys

The metal primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus, Kuraray Noritake Dental, Japan) and the adhesive agent (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were chosen as test groups for this research. A one-time application of metal primer and adhesive agent, a traditional adhesive for repair methodology, was applied to the sandblasted specimen, whereas no such treatment of metal primer was provided to the negative controls. Table 1 lists the materials used in this study.
Ten samples were randomly assigned to each group in the manner described below.
Group 1: one-time application of metal primer;
Group 2: two-time applications of metal primer;
Group 3: three-time applications of metal primer;
Group 4: four-time applications of metal primer;
Group 5: five-time applications of metal primer;
Group 6: no application of metal primer.
Except for the negative controls, each of them underwent a 10 s oil-free air-drying process after being coated with the metal primer using a microbrush in accordance with their group’s instructions. Following the application of the metal primer to the specimens, a microbrush was used to apply an adhesive agent, which was then light-activated over 20 s (LED.D, Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument Co., Ltd., Guilin, China) after oil-free air through a triple syringe.

2.3. Bonding with Resin Composite

On the specimens’ prepared surfaces, 80-micron-thick pieces of adhesive tape (ScotchBlue Painter’s, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) with circular holes of 2.0 mm in diameter were applied in order to represent the bonding region. A silicone mold measuring 3.0 mm in diameter and 2.0 mm in thickness was placed over the adhesive tape top. Next, Clearfil AP-X Resin Composite Shade A3 (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan) was filled into the silicone mold, which was then light-activated over 40 s (Figure 2). The bonded samples were kept for half an hour at room temperature and then for a full day at 37 °C in distilled water in an incubator instrument (CN-25C, Matsuyoshi and Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).

2.4. Shear Bond Strength and Debonded-Surface Analysis

A universal apparatus (EZ-S 500N, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) for testing was used to assess the shear bonding ability. The load was operated at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, parallel to the interface between the resin composite and base metal alloys (Figure 3). The shear bond strength was computed by dividing the highest shear bond strength by the surface region of the base metal alloys and resin composite interface in megapascal (MPa).
In order to investigate the failure pattern mode, a stereomicroscope with forty-times (×40) magnification (1013369, 3B Scientific GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) was used for observing the debonded-surface interfaces. Three patterns were identified from the debonded-surface pattern modes [4,16,17] as follows:
(a)
Breakage originates at the interface between the resin composite and base metal alloys in the adhesive pattern;
(b)
Brake beneath the resin composite material; cohesive pattern mode;
(c)
Adhesive and cohesive pattern modes were combined to create mixed pattern modes.

2.5. Analytical Statistics

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences was the statistical database used to analyze the data, which were gathered throughout the experimental period using a standard collection form. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were applied to statistically explore the data. Statistical significance was interpreted as p < 0.05 for all comparisons.

3. Results

3.1. SBS Data

The averages and standard deviations of the repair shear bond strengths are revealed in Table 2. The weakest shear bond strength was found in group 6 (6.14 ± 1.12 MPa), demonstrating a significant difference when compared to groups 1 to 5 (all pairwise p = 0.000). The three greatest shear bond strength values were demonstrated in groups 3 to 5. The shear bond strength of group 3 was strongest at 21.49 ± 1.33 MPa; there was no significant difference between group 3 and group 4 (20.21 ± 2.08 MPa) (p = 0.773), group 3 and group 5 (20.98 ± 2.69 MPa) (p = 1.000), or group 4 and group 5 (p = 1.000). Moreover, group 1 (13.36 ± 2.58 MPa) had no significant difference compared to group 2 (14.95 ± 1.87 MPa) (p = 0.813).

3.2. Failure-Type Patterns

Table 2 provides an overview of the failure mode distribution pattern. After being fractured, all the fractured specimens in groups 1, 2, and 6 were identified as having the adhesive failure mode. Additionally, in groups 3 to 5, mixed failure modes were observed. Groups 3 and 4 exhibited the highest percentage of mixed failure patterns. In this investigation, no specimen showed a cohesive failure mode. Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show examples of failure mode patterns observed using a stereomicroscope.

4. Discussion

A restorative material can also degrade due to several causes, such as dental material characteristics, restoration kind and size, variations in temperatures, and the bonding ability of the tooth or restoration to the materials. Therefore, it looks unreasonable to base a dental material’s survival rate evaluation only on the effect of shear strength. However, tensile and compressive strengths are also important factors. However, shear bond strength is widely acknowledged as a significant predictor of a material’s mechanical performance [18]. This study’s main focus was to determine the influence of applying a metal primer containing 10-MDP multiple times on the base metal alloys’ repair shear bond strength to resin composites. This study’s findings indicate that the repair shear bond strength of base metal alloys to resin composites is affected by multiple-time applications of metal primers containing 10-MDP. The outcomes of this research reflected that the appropriate multiple-time applications of metal primers containing 10-MDP can enhance the repair shear bonding ability of base metal alloys to resin composites. Using shear bond strength analysis, the standard control was a one-time application of a metal primer containing 10-MDP before applying the adhesive agent, promoting the repair bonding ability. Furthermore, the bonding effectiveness of the metal primer containing 10-MDP increases dramatically with multiple-time applications before applying a coat of adhesive agent. Consequently, it was decided to reject the null hypothesis.
Two complementary processes, namely micromechanical retention and chemical adhesion bonding, work together to form the adhesion bond between the base metal alloys and the resin composite [4]. One very successful surface preparation technique has been shown for base metal alloy surfaces: alumina sandblasted with Al2O3. While an increased surface area of the base metal alloys provides a greater adhesive contact surface, the surface improved by airborne particle abrasion enhances micromechanical retention [19,20]. To ensure the improvement in the micromechanical retention and surface roughness of the base metal alloy specimens in this investigation, they were sandblasted with 50 μm sized Al2O3 particles for a duration of 10 s under pressure of 0.2 MPa perpendicular to the base metal alloys’ surface [15].
Regarding the chemical adhesion process, it has been demonstrated that metal primers containing 10-MDP are effective in creating strong adhesive connections between base metal alloys and resin composites [4,21]. The structure of a metal primer containing 10-MDP consists of three parts: (a) an initiating polymerization group capable of starting polymerization processes; (b) a phosphate group that is capable of forming chemical adhesion to the substrate, which is called an adhesion-promoting group; and (c) a connecting group that serves as the connection between the polymerizable functional group and the adhesion-promoting group. Metal ions interact with the acidic adhesion-promoting groups as they ionize, forming oxygen anions, which facilitates a steady acid–base reaction in the acidic metal primers [19]. Suzuki et al. have discovered that chromium can adsorb 10-MDP, one of the most significant compounds that promotes adhesion in acidic primers [22]. This helps to explain why base metal alloys based on chromium have powerful bonding qualities.
Based on the core of these findings, it was demonstrated that the performance of the adhesive agent alone (6.14 ± 1.12 MPa) was not as good as that of the metal primers with 10-MDP applied once (13.36 ± 2.58 MPa) or twice (14.95 ± 1.87 MPa) before the adhesive agent. The reason for this might be that the base metal alloys’ outermost surface was chemically connected to 10-MDP, a phosphate functional monomer [21]. The 10-MDP bifunctional monomer has two ends: one with a double-bonded methacrylate that can polymerize with resin composites and the other with a phosphate group that is chemically linked to the base metal alloy oxide layer, boosting the repair shear bonding ability [4,21]. The repair shear bonding ability was three times higher when three to five applications of the metal primer containing 10-MDP (21.49 ± 1.33, 20.21 ± 2.08, 20.98 ± 2.69 MPa, respectively) were combined with an adhesive agent. There are four possible explanations for enhancing the repair shear bond strength. The first possible explanation may be the increased concentration of the 10-MDP functional monomer following multiple coating applications of the metal primer [14]. Consequently, more chemical adhesions are created between the 10-MDP functional monomer and the base metal alloy oxide layer, increasing the adhesion among the base metal alloys to the resin composite. The second explanation is that three to five applications of the metal primer containing 10-MDP might create stable chemical adhesion on the base metal alloys’ surfaces, which increases the repair shear bonding ability. The third possibility is that the more solvent evaporated throughout the coating process, the more times the metal primer was treated. The Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus that was employed in this experiment was composed of 80% ethanol solvent, and this evaporated when air was blown [23]. The increased number of applications might have enhanced the solvent’s evaporation from the base metal alloy’s surface when more air was blown. This improved the bonding performance between base metal alloys and the resin composites by enabling the base metal alloys’ bond contact to be solvent-free and creating an optimum bonding environment. However, when comparing five-time applications of the metal primer containing 10-MDP with an adhesive agent to three- and four-time treatments, there was no statistically significant difference in the outcome. This could be the result of the solvent completely evaporating when air was applied following the three-time application [14]. The final reason is that after the three-time application of the metal primer containing 10-MDP, all of the base metal alloy oxide layers in the bonded surface region were completely bonded with the 10-MDP monomers [14]. As a consequence, if the metal primer containing 10-MDP was coated more than three times, the bonded surface region coated with 10-MDP would not significantly change. Moreover, in the study by Yoshihara et al., the bonding ability of 10-MDP was influenced by its purity [24].
The adhesive bond values obtained in this investigation were categorized using revised ISO 10477, a standard from the German Institute for Standardization. The shear bond strength test results must be accepted with a bond strength of at least 5 MPa [25]. According to Matsumura et al., the shear bonding ability between resin and metal should be more than 10 MPa in order to provide clinically beneficial results [26]. Considering the usual masticatory force, Behr and colleagues estimated that a dental repair in the anterior area would require a bonding force of about 10 MPa [27]. For the proper adhesive cementation of permanent dental restorations, a review from Raszewski et al. further specified an acceptable adhesive bond strength between the range of 20 and 30 MPa [28]. There are no set standards for acceptable values of repair bonding ability. Previous experimental studies state that the clinically accepted repair bonding ability value is at least 20 MPa [29,30]. According to this investigation, the repair shear bond strength of metal primers containing 10-MDP applied three to five times varied from 20.21 ± 2.08 to 21.49 ± 1.33 MPa, which is clinically accepted for repair strength. The present investigation outcome suggests a clinical protocol in which 10-MDP is an elementary metal primer agent for superior adhesion when a metal primer containing 10-MDP is applied three times before applying the adhesive agent to repair base metal alloys to resin composites.
A three-pattern system was employed to categorize the different types of fracture failure in specific aspects of the failure mode displayed [4,16,17]: (a) an adhesive failure pattern that arises from breaking the base metal alloys and the resin composite together; (b) a cohesive failure mode that breaks underneath the resin composite; and (c) a mixed failure pattern that is the result of mixing cohesive and adhesive failure modes. All the specimens in groups 1, 2, and 6 in our examination had adhesive failure. Furthermore, groups 3, 4, and 5 started to exhibit mixed failure patterns more frequently. The increased repair shear bond strength frequently corresponded to the mixed failure modes.
To the best of our knowledge, the core contribution of this research is that it provides insights into how several applications of metal primers containing 10-MDP affect the repair shear bond strength of resin composites and base metal alloys. Nevertheless, this study has several limitations. Initially, there may be variations in base metal alloys and metal primers between lots. This study is not intended to address manufacturing standards. As previously stated, the shear bond strength is not the sole factor affecting an adhesive’s clinical survival rate. All things considered, care should be taken when interpreting the findings of our study.

5. Conclusions

This study’s main purpose was to investigate the influence of applying metal primers containing 10-MDP multiple times on the base metal alloys’ repair shear bond strength to resin composites. The results of this study show that multiple applications of metal primers containing 10-MDP affect the repair shear bond strength of base metal alloys to resin composites.
(1)
The performance of the adhesive agent alone (6.14 ± 1.12 MPa) was not as good as that of the metal primers with 10-MDP applied once (13.36 ± 2.58 MPa) or twice (14.95 ± 1.87 MPa) before the adhesive agent.
(2)
The repair shear bonding ability was three times higher when three to five applications of metal primers containing 10-MDP (21.49 ± 1.33, 20.21 ± 2.08, 20.98 ± 2.69 MPa, respectively) were combined with an adhesive agent, but there was no significant difference between three-time and five-time applications.
(3)
To achieve superior repair shear bonding ability at the base metal alloys and resin composite interface, the sandblasted surface of base metal alloys should be coated with three applications (21.49 ± 1.33 MPa) of a metal primer containing 10-MDP before applying the adhesive agent.
(4)
The novel protocol for treating the surface of a base metal alloy repaired with resin composites involved using a metal primer with 10-MDP three times before using the adhesive agent.

Author Contributions

A.K., C.P. and B.K. conceived and designed the study. A.K. and C.P. performed the experiments and interpreted the results. A.K., C.P. and B.K. drafted the manuscript. A.K., C.P. and B.K. revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Thammasat University Research Fund of Thammasat University, Thailand, Contract No. TUFT 0069/2567.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ozcan, M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J. Oral Rehabil. 2003, 30, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Blum, I.R.; Jagger, D.C.; Wilson, N.H. Defective dental restorations: To repair or not to repair? Part 2: All–ceramics and porcelain fused to metal systems. Dent. Update 2011, 3, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Meng, X.; Ye, Y.; Feng, D.; Xue, J.; Wang, H.; Huang, H.; Wang, M.; Wang, J. Rheological and mechanical properties of resin-based materials applied in dental restorations. Polymers 2021, 13, 2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Klaisiri, A.; Krajangta, N.; Peampring, C.; Sriamporn, T.; Thamrongananskul, N.; Neff, A.; Pitak-Arnnop, P. Shear bond strength of different functional monomer in universal adhesives at the resin composite/base metal alloys interface. J. Int. Dent. Med. Res. 2021, 14, 187–191. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yoo, J.Y.; Yoon, H.I.; Park, J.M.; Park, E.J. Porcelain repair—Influence of different systems and surface treatments on resin bond strength. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2015, 7, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chang, J.C. Amalgam repair with a 4-META resin. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 92, 506–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yoshida, Y.; Nagakane, K.; Fukuda, R.; Nakayama, Y.; Okazaki, M.; Shintani, H.; Inoue, S.; Tagawa, Y.; Suzuki, K.; De Munck, J.; et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J. Dent. Res. 2004, 83, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Peumans, M.; Kanumilli, P.; De Munck, J.; Van Landuyt, K.; Lambrechts, P.; Van Meerbeek, B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent. Mater. 2005, 21, 864–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ikemura, K.; Fujii, T.; Negoro, N.; Endo, T.; Kadoma, Y. Design of a metal primer containing a dithiooctanoate monomer and a phosphonic acid monomer for bonding of prosthetic light-curing resin composite to gold, dental precious and non-precious metal alloys. Dent. Mater. J. 2011, 30, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shirani, F.; Kianipour, A.; Rahbar, M. The effect of mechanical and chemical surface preparation methods on the bond strength in repairing the surface of metal-ceramic crowns with composite resin: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maedica 2020, 15, 206–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Almilhatti, H.J.; Giampaolo, E.T.; Vergani, C.E.; Machado, A.L.; Pavarina, A.C.; Betiol, E.A. Adhesive bonding of resin composite to various Ni-Cr alloy surfaces using different metal conditioners and a surface modification system. J. Prosthodont. 2009, 18, 663–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Nima, G.; Ferreira, P.V.C.; Paula, A.B.; Consani, S.; Giannini, M. Effect of metal primers on bond strength of a composite resin to Nickel-Chrome metal alloy. Braz. Dent. J. 2017, 28, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ikemura, K.; Endo, T.; Kadoma, Y. A review of the developments of multi-purpose primers and adhesives comprising novel dithiooctanoate monomers and phosphonic acid monomers. Dent. Mater. J. 2012, 31, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Klaisiri, A.; Maneenacarith, A.; Jirathawornkul, N.; Suthamprajak, P.; Sriamporn, T.; Thamrongananskul, N. The Effect of multiple applications of phosphate-containing primer on shear bond strength between zirconia and resin composite. Polymers 2022, 14, 4174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sarafianou, A.; Seimenis, I.; Papadopoulos, T. Effectiveness of different adhesive primers on the bond strength between an indirect composite resin and a base metal alloy. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2008, 99, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sriamporn, T.; Thamrongananskul, N.; Klaisiri, A. The effectiveness of various functional monomers in self-adhesive resin cements on prosthetic materials. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2022, 12, 332–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Klaisiri, A.; Phumpatrakom, P.; Thamrongananskul, N. Chemical surface modification methods of resin composite repaired with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Eur. J. Dent. 2023, 17, 804–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cheetham, J.J.; Palamara, J.E.A.; Tyas, M.J.; Burrow, M.F.; Maneenut, C.; Sakoolnamarka, R. Evaluation of a new test method to determine the failure mode and macro-shear bond strength of dental materials to metals. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2014, 28, 881–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kawashima, S.; Nagai, Y.; Shinkai, K. Effect of silane coupling treatment and airborne-particle abrasion on shear bond strength between photo-cured bulk-fill flowable composite resin and silverpalladium-copper-gold alloy using self-adhesive resin cement. Dent. Mater. J. 2019, 38, 418–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abdullah Alsadon, O. Adhesion concepts and techniques for laboratory-processed indirect dental restorations. Saudi Dent. J. 2022, 34, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ajay, R.; JafarAbdulla, M.U.; Sivakumar, J.S.; Baburajan, K.; Rakshagan, V.; Eyeswarya, J. Dental alloy adhesive primers and bond strength at alloy-resin interface: A systematic review and meta-analyses. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2023, 24, 521–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Suzuki, M.; Yamamoto, M.; Fujishima, A.; Miyazaki, T.; Hisamitsu, H.; Kojima, K.; Kadoma, Y. Raman and IR studies on adsorption behavior of adhesive monomers in a metal primer for Au, Ag, Cu, and Cr surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2002, 62, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Milagres, F.D.S.A.; Oliveira, D.D.; Silveira, G.S.; Oliveira, E.F.F.; Antunes, A.N.D.G. Bond strength and failure pattern of orthodontic tubes adhered to a zirconia surface submitted to different modes of application of a ceramic primer. Materials 2019, 12, 3922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yoshihara, K.; Nagaoka, N.; Okihara, T.; Kuroboshi, M.; Hayakawa, S.; Maruo, Y.; Nishigawa, G.; De Munck, J.; Yoshida, Y.; Van Meerbeek, B. Functional monomer impurity affects adhesive performance. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 1493–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. ISO 10477:2020; Dentistry-Polymer-Based Crown and Bridge Materials. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/store.htm (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  26. Matsumura, H.; Yanagida, H.; Tanoue, N.; Atsuta, M.; Shimoe, S. Shear bond strength of resin composite veneering material to gold alloy with varying metal surface preparations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2001, 86, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Behr, M.; Rosentritt, M.; Gröger, G.; Handel, G. Adhesive bond of veneering composites on various metal surfaces using silicoating, titanium-coating or functional monomers. J. Dent. 2003, 31, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Raszewski, Z.; Brząkalski, D.; Derpeński, Ł.; Jałbrzykowski, M.; Przekop, R.E. Aspects and principles of material connections in restorative dentistry-a comprehensive review. Materials 2022, 15, 7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wiegand, A.; Stucki, L.; Hoffmann, R.; Attin, T.; Stawarczyk, B. Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015, 19, 2007–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Güngör, M.B.; Nemli, S.K.; Bal, B.T.; Ünver, S.; Doğan, A. Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to CAD/CAM resin-ceramic hybrid materials. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2016, 8, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmmp 08 00196 g001
Figure 1. Base metal alloy rod specimens.
Figure 1. Base metal alloy rod specimens.
Jmmp 08 00196 g001
Jmmp 08 00196 g002
Figure 2. Bonded specimens.
Figure 2. Bonded specimens.
Jmmp 08 00196 g002
Jmmp 08 00196 g003
Figure 3. The schematic of the SBS test.
Figure 3. The schematic of the SBS test.
Jmmp 08 00196 g003
Jmmp 08 00196 g004
Figure 4. The adhesive failure mode of group 1 (Ad, adhesive failure).
Figure 4. The adhesive failure mode of group 1 (Ad, adhesive failure).
Jmmp 08 00196 g004
Jmmp 08 00196 g005
Figure 5. The adhesive failure mode of group 2 (Ad, adhesive failure).
Figure 5. The adhesive failure mode of group 2 (Ad, adhesive failure).
Jmmp 08 00196 g005
Jmmp 08 00196 g006
Figure 6. Failure mode of group 3: (A) adhesive failure mode; (B) mixed failure mode (Ad, adhesive failure; Co, cohesive failure in the resin composite).
Figure 6. Failure mode of group 3: (A) adhesive failure mode; (B) mixed failure mode (Ad, adhesive failure; Co, cohesive failure in the resin composite).
Jmmp 08 00196 g006
Jmmp 08 00196 g007
Figure 7. Failure mode of group 4: (A) adhesive failure mode; (B) mixed failure mode (Ad, adhesive failure; Co, cohesive failure in the resin composite).
Figure 7. Failure mode of group 4: (A) adhesive failure mode; (B) mixed failure mode (Ad, adhesive failure; Co, cohesive failure in the resin composite).
Jmmp 08 00196 g007
Jmmp 08 00196 g008
Figure 8. Failure mode of group 5: (A) adhesive failure mode; (B) mixed failure mode (Ad, adhesive failure; Co, cohesive failure in the resin composite).
Figure 8. Failure mode of group 5: (A) adhesive failure mode; (B) mixed failure mode (Ad, adhesive failure; Co, cohesive failure in the resin composite).
Jmmp 08 00196 g008
Jmmp 08 00196 g009
Figure 9. The adhesive failure mode of group 6 (Ad, adhesive failure).
Figure 9. The adhesive failure mode of group 6 (Ad, adhesive failure).
Jmmp 08 00196 g009
Table 1. The brand names, lot numbers, manufacturer information, and chemical components of the resin composite, adhesive agent, and metal primer employed in this study.
Table 1. The brand names, lot numbers, manufacturer information, and chemical components of the resin composite, adhesive agent, and metal primer employed in this study.
MaterialComposition
Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus
(Kuraray Noritake Dental, Japan)
Lot: 310073		10-MDP, ethanol, 3-trimethoxysilylpropyl methacrylate
Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)
Lot: N378816		Bis-GMA, HEMA, dimethacrylate, methacrylate functional copolymer, filler, photoinitiators, ethanol, water
Clearfil AP-X Resin Composite (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan)
Lot: 560138		Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, silanated colloidal silica, silanated barium glass filler, silanated silica filler, dl-camphorquinone, catalysts, accelerators, pigment
Abbreviations: 10-MDP, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; Bis-GMA, bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate; HEMA, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate.
Table 2. Mean shear bond strength ± standard deviation (megapascal) and failure mode (%).
Table 2. Mean shear bond strength ± standard deviation (megapascal) and failure mode (%).
GroupMean SBS (SD) Failure Pattern
AdhesiveMixedCohesive
1. One primer application13.36 ± 2.58 a10000
2. Two primer applications14.95 ± 1.87 a10000
3. Three primer applications21.49 ± 1.33 b80200
4. Four primer applications20.21 ± 2.08 b80200
5. Five primer applications20.98 ± 2.69 b90100
6. No primer application6.14 ± 1.12 c10000
The values with identical letters indicate no statistically significant difference.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Klaisiri, A.; Paaopanchon, C.; Kukiattrakoon, B. The Effect of Multiple-Time Applications of Metal Primers Containing 10-MDP on the Repair Strength of Base Metal Alloys to Resin Composite. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2024, 8, 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050196

AMA Style

Klaisiri A, Paaopanchon C, Kukiattrakoon B. The Effect of Multiple-Time Applications of Metal Primers Containing 10-MDP on the Repair Strength of Base Metal Alloys to Resin Composite. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing. 2024; 8(5):196. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050196

Chicago/Turabian Style

Klaisiri, Awiruth, Chanakan Paaopanchon, and Boonlert Kukiattrakoon. 2024. "The Effect of Multiple-Time Applications of Metal Primers Containing 10-MDP on the Repair Strength of Base Metal Alloys to Resin Composite" Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing 8, no. 5: 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050196

APA Style

Klaisiri, A., Paaopanchon, C., & Kukiattrakoon, B. (2024). The Effect of Multiple-Time Applications of Metal Primers Containing 10-MDP on the Repair Strength of Base Metal Alloys to Resin Composite. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 8(5), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp8050196

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop