Professional Documents
Culture Documents
With all of the new bonding materials on the market, dentists are quick to pull
the trigger and sometimes end up using them without gaining the proper
training first. The patient may be none the wiser until they run into a future
problem with a broken restoration, tooth sensitivity, or a periodontal issue and
the need to seek additional treatment. With proper training, practice, the
correct materials and techniques, and following instructions for use, clinicians
can position themselves for success from the outset.
Adhesive dentistry and resin bonding have presented the profession and
patients with a whole new range of treatment options beyond direct
restorations. The applications and indications of many indirect restorations are
now possible as a result of the newer materials available today.
Placing an indirect restoration requires bonding the tooth structure (ie, enamel
and dentin) to a restorative substrate (ie, silica-based ceramic, zirconia
ceramic, resin ceramic, gold alloy, base metal alloy), explains John M.
Powers, PhD, publisher of The Dental Advisor and clinical professor of oral
biomaterials at the University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston.
Bonding to tooth structure could be accomplished by a total-etch (ie,
phosphoric acid) technique or a self-etch technique. Universal bonding
agents are compatible with both techniques, he says.
Ed McLaren, DDS, MDC, director of the UCLA Center for Esthetic Dentistry
and professor in the Department of Biomaterials and Advanced
Prosthodontics, notes that the total-etch technique using phosphoric acid
with fourth-generation bonding agents have shown excellent long-term
success and have the most “evidence,” and when used for etching should
have an etch pH of approximately 0.7 or 0.8, depending on the dentist’s
comfort zone and whether or not they’ll etch the dentin. There are several
agents that have been shown to reduce the main concern from etching—ie,
sensitivity—the best being a 30-second application of material containing 5%
glutaraldehyde and 35% HEMA. These materials have also shown inhibitory
effects of the class of enzymes called MMPs, which are thought to contribute
to long-term bond breakdown by collagen dissolution and subsequent
hydrolosis. If dentists choose not to etch the dentin, then short-term data
suggests that universal adhesives may work, he says, but there is almost
universal agreement that enamel still should be etched.
“I do think we should be sealing the dentin, and one of the big benefits is
increased adhesion, especially in a non-retentive, high-stress situation,”
McLaren emphasizes. “One of the best benefits of dentin adhesion is stress
distribution over minimized crack formations.”
For decades, dentistry has considered “moist dentin” to be the ideal bonding
substrate, Sorensen elaborates. The rationale, as described by David Pashley,
was that if the phosphoric acid-conditioned dentin was over-dried, the
collagen fibers would collapse, reducing the capacity to impregnate the
dentin surface with the adhesive.
“The question that clinicians always ask is, ‘How wet is moist dentin?’”
Sorensen says, adding that the elastic modulus of dentin is significantly lower
than enamel, producing poorer support of the ceramic and increased tensile
forces in occlusion (See “Ceramic Thickness Requirements When Supported
by Dentin,” sidebar). “Achieving this ideal tooth condition has been elusive
and made many adhesive systems overly technique-sensitive.”
“When you’re talking about indirect restorations, you’re talking about zirconia,
lithium disilicate, or regular porcelain,” Margeas explains. “Lithium disilicate
and regular porcelain really need to be bonded for good retention, whereas
zirconia can be cemented, and there’s a difference between cementing
versus bonding.”
“However, bonding a zirconia crown with a strong esthetic resin cement might
be the best choice for a preparation with poor retention,” Powers notes.
According to Peter Pizzi, CDT, MDT, owner of Pizzi Dental Studio, Inc, the
best form of bonding is to enamel, and when it comes to material choices,
not every material demonstrates the same bonding abilities. Lithium disilicate,
for example, can be adhesively bonded or cohesively cemented.
“I think there are questions about how well harder, newer structures actually
work in the bonded world,” Pizzi believes. “On the clinical side, it’s really
about having enamel. On the laboratory side, it’s more about understanding
which material you’re working with that can or cannot be bonded.”
“However, the length of time you etch is material-specific, and also depends
on the concentration of the hydrofluoric acid,” Fasbinder adds. “For example,
lithium disilicate (ie, IPS e.max) is only etched with a 4.9% hydrofluoric acid
solution for 20 seconds, but with the same solution leucite-reinforced glass
ceramic (ie, IPS Empress) is etched for 1 minute. There are other solutions
with a concentration up to 9%, which would then change the length of
etching time, so it’s important to understand the material differences because
if you overetch, you’ll have a friable surface that won’t bond well.”
“Self-adhesive resin cements are unique in that they will bond to both tooth
structure and most restorative substrates without an additional primer,”
Powers says. “Adhesive resin cements require a primer for tooth structure but
will bond to most substrates without a primer. However, use of a primer with
self-adhesive and adhesive resin cements will increase the bond strength.
Esthetic resin cements require both tooth structure and restorative substrate
primers.”
“We can get into the habit of always using similar materials over and over
again, on both sides—the clinical and the laboratory side,” Pizzi admits.
“However, there are times when patients have issues with their enamel, for
example, that can affect bondability, and we would rather cement, and there
are other times when cementing doesn’t seem to be an option. The goal is to
choose what material will work best in that environment for that patient.”
“Discussing bonding failure rates is a catch-22 because you’re not going into
the process to do it poorly, so if a failure occurs, the evaluation is
retrospective to determine where it failed and whether it was a material failure,
a preparation failure, or a bonding failure,” Fasbinder explains. “So, when the
question is whether the restoration failure rate partially results due to improper
bonding, I can almost 100% guarantee that it does. But again, nobody tries
to do it poorly to see what the outcome is.”
McLaren adds that what is not commonly known is that a benefit of adhesive
bonding—combined with the restorative material—is stress distribution. The
higher the bond strength, the better the stress distribution into the tooth and
the restoration. Further, the more even the stress distribution, the less likely a
crack is to form. Improper bonding techniques jeopardizes this otherwise
beneficial property.
“The better you have sealed your teeth—which is a bonding procedure, and
the better you have chosen a material that is polishable, the healthier your
soft tissue will be,” McLaren observes. “This is another reason for adhesion
today, and for using materials that have polishability and smoothness that are
similar to natural tooth structure.”
Conclusion
In essence, bonding enables dentists to be less invasive and retain more of
their teeth—and their natural tooth structure—longer. That may explain why
dentists strive to bond restorations despite its cumbersome protocol, which
requires multiple steps and very delicate treatment execution, Blatz says.
“If it doesn’t work, then you’re looking at failure,” Blatz cautions. “But if you
do it properly and with the proper materials, we have the ability to be less
invasive and help patients keep their teeth longer, so it’s obviously the way to
go.”
Reference
1. Blatz MB, Alvarez M, Sawyer K, Brindis M. How to bond zirconia: the APC
concept. Compend Cont Educ Dent. 2016;37(9):611-617.
References
1. Suarez C. Fracture Resistance of Minimal Thickness Ceramic Partial
Coverage Restorations Under Dynamic Loading. MSD Thesis, University of
Washington, 2016.
“We were very impressed with the bond strengths observed with several of
the adhesives,” Sorensen says. “The adhesives tested demonstrated
significant improvements in tolerance of dentin surface moisture conditions.”
The results of these bond strength tests with the same four dentin moisture
surface conditions combined with cements showed that several adhesives/
cements were highly tolerant of varying dentin moisture conditions. The two
best systems were Adhese Universal/Variolink Esthetic (Ivoclar
Vivadent; www.ivoclarvivadent.com), with dentin bond strength values of
dentin moisture groups 1, 3, and 4 ranging from 82% to 99% of the ideal
moist dentin; and Scotchbond™ Universal/RelyX™ Ultimate (3M; www.
3M.com) ranging from 77% to 93% of moist dentin.1,2
“We also evaluated the self-etching bond strengths and found that of the four
adhesives/cements evaluated, the self-etch enamel bond strengths ranged
from 64.3% to 86.3% for the phosphoric-acid–etched enamel,” Sorensen
says. “The self-etch dentin bond strengths ranged from 64% to 87% for the
phosphoric-acid–treated moist dentin.”
This means that the new generation of adhesive/cement systems bring, first,
a reduction in technique sensitivity with a considerable improvement in the
tolerance of dentin moisture surface conditions, Sorensen explains. Secondly,
with the improvements in the self-etching qualities of these adhesives,
dentists can have a second line of defense by knowing the dentin self-etching
qualities of the adhesives can correct potential procedural mistakes made
during the adhesive preparation process.1,2
References
1. Sorensen JA, Chen Y-W. Shear bond strength of adhesives to dentin with
varying moisture conditions. J Dent Res. 2016: Spec. Iss. Ab# 1342.
2. Sorensen JA, Chen Y-W. Shear bond strength of cements to dentin with
varying moisture conditions. J Prosthet Dent. Manuscript in preparation.