An in vitro comparison of four intra-oral ceramic repair systems

Objectives tudy evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning methods on the tensile bond strength (TBS) and integrity of the leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (Cerana® inserts)–resin composite interface, using four commercially available ceramic repair systems. s ndred extra-large Cerana® inserts were mechanically treated and stored in artificial saliva for 3 weeks and subsequently randomly assigned to one of the following ceramic repair systems (n = 40/group): Group 1, Ceramic Repair® (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein); Group 2, Cimara® (Voco, Germany); Group 3, Clearfil Repair® (Kuraray, Japan); Group 4, CoJet system® (3M ESPE, Germany); and Group 5, no surface conditioning and no adhesive system applied: the control group. Subsequently, resin composite material was added to the substrate surfaces and the ceramic–resin composite specimens were subjected to TBS testing. Representative samples from the test groups were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to determine the mode of failure. The data were analysed statistically using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance and Kruskal–Wallis test at a 95% confidence interval level. s e conditioning with the CoJet® system resulted in significantly higher bond strength values (5.2 ± 1.1 MPa) than surface conditioning with the other repair systems (p = 0.03). The SEM examination of the failed interfaces revealed that all the specimens examined failed adhesively. icance highest bond strength values were observed with the CoJet® system all tested repair systems resulted in relatively weak TBS values and, as a consequence, these repair systems may be indicated only as interim measures.