ISRN Biomaterials

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 185376, 10 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2013/185376

Review Article

A Review of Surface Treatment Methods to Improve the Adhesive Cementation of Zirconia-Based Ceramics

Rodrigo Dalla Lana Mattiello,¹ Tulio Marcos Kalife Coelho,¹ Elizeu Insaurralde,¹ Alan Augusto Kalife Coelho,² Gustavo Pereira Terra,³ Amanda Vessoni Barbosa Kasuya,⁴ Isabella Negro Favarão,⁴ Luciano de Souza Gonçalves,⁵ and Rodrigo Borges Fonseca4,6

¹Occlusion and Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Dental School, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil

²Department of Periodontics, Dental School, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil

³Department of Implantology, Dental School, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil

⁴Department of Restorative Dentistry and Dental Materials, Dental School, UFG, Goiânia, GO, Brazil

⁵Department of Dental Materials, Dental School, UNIUBE, Uberaba, MG, Brazil

⁶Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Praça Universitária Esquina com 1a Avenida s/n, Setor Universitário, 74605-220 Goiânia, GO, Brazil

Received 17 July 2013; Accepted 29 August 2013

Academic Editors: A. Apicella, S.-J. Ding, R. Marx, and S. Sauro

Copyright © 2013 Rodrigo Dalla Lana Mattiello et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

In spite of high mechanical strength, zirconia-based ceramics (ZrO₂) has poor bond strength after conventional bond cementation procedures, requiring different surface treatment methods (STMs). This review gathered information about the STM for adhesive cementation (AC) to ZrO₂ in the PubMed database, considering in vitro studies pertaining to AC for acid-resistant ceramics (ZrO₂) limited to peer-reviewed papers published in English between 1965 and 2013 in dental journals. Different STMs have been proposed for ZrO₂: air-abrasion (laboratory or chairside) with silica- (Si-) coated aluminum particles, the use of materials containing phosphate monomers, primer or silane application, laser irradiation, Si vapor phase deposition, and selective infiltration etching. In conclusion, STMs improve bond strength of resin luting cement to ZrO₂ mainly when tested in short time. STMs must be correlated to the type of ZrO₂ and the resin cement.

1. Introduction

Recent developments in ceramic materials science for dental applications have led to a class of high fracture strength materials represented by alumina (Al₂O₃) and zirconia-based ceramics (ZrO₂) that potentially enable long-term durability [1, 2]. These improved properties allowed the use of all-ceramic materials in situations of high mechanical stress, such as framework materials, crowns, bridges, core, and post systems [3].

The increase of mechanical properties by ZrO₂ addition is accompanied by a reduction in the glassy matrix and Si content [3, 4] resulting in acid-resistant ceramics [5]. In the Si-based ceramics the glassy matrix is selectively removed by hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, increasing the surface roughness (Ra) for micromechanical bonding [6–8]. This procedure is generally followed by application of a silane coupling agent, that is able to bond with the silicone dioxide (SiO₂) and copolymerizes with the organic matrix of the resin cement [2]. The lack of a glassy matrix and the absence of SiO₂ make acid etching plus silane application incapable of modifying and treating the zirconia surface [9–12], with no apparent improvement in bond strength [7, 8, 13].

The clinical success of ceramic restorations depends on the cementation process [7]. Adhesive cementation (AC) to ZrO₂ ceramics is desirable [14] since it improves retention [2, 15], marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance [16], reduces the possibility of recurrent decay [8, 17], and enables more conservative cavity preparations [15]. Different methods to promote the adequate adhesion between the resin cement and ZrO₂ have been proposed: use of a phosphate-modified monomer (MDP) in resin cement [2, 18–23], laboratory or chairside air-abrasion with 110 and 30 μm Si-coated aluminum particles [22–26], the use of zirconate coupler primers [27], tetraethoxysilane flame-treat device usage [3], the use of organofunctional silanes [28, 29], laser irradiation [17, 30], the Si vapor phase deposition method [1], and the selective infiltration etching procedure [31–33].

Nevertheless, even with all these surface treatment methods (STMs) for increasing bond strength to ZrO₂ there are several controversial results, especially due to different bond strength testing methodologies [3]. The aim of this study was to discuss the STM for increasing adhesion capability of ZrO₂ by means of reviewing the literature, establishing a protocol for clinical procedures.

2. Methods

This review of the literature was based on a PubMed databases search following the criteria listed in Table 1. Papers were selected since 1965 due to the first cited method to strengthen dental ceramics by the addition of reinforcement oxides [34]. However, since it was not the aim of the present work to identify ZrO₂ ceramics introduction and development into dentistry, the search was limited to find different STMs and their results in relation to bond strength.

Table 1: Criteria for paper selection for this study.

Topics
Criteria

Database
PubMed

Date range
1965 to 2013

Keywords
Ceramic surface treatment AND zirconia,

“zirconia adhesion,” zirconia ceramics,

and “bond strength”

Language
English

Type of paper
In vitro laboratory research and literature reviews

Subset (journal group)
Dental journals

3. Results

The number of papers retrieved and selected from the PubMed search are described in Table 2. From all retrieved papers (Table 2) the ones that described techniques developed to increase bond strength of ZrO₂ to resin cement and their relation with the material’s composition were selected. Bond strength methods of selected papers were shear tests (29 papers), microshear tests (3 papers), tensile tests (5 papers), microtensile tests (11 papers), and pull-out tests (01 paper). Just one paper employed both micro-tensile and shear bond strength methods, observing similar results [35].

Table 2: Number of selected papers according to keywords.

Keywords
Total retrieved papers
Number of selected papers
Total*

Ceramic surface treatment and zirconia
120
30
79

“Zirconia adhesion”
79
12

Zirconia ceramics and “bond strength”
118
37

Excluding repeated papers.

Table 3 shows retrieved papers from PubMed database search grouped in accordance with bond strength (BS) tests, surface treatment method (STM), and results for BS improvement. Only zirconia-based ceramics BS measurements were listed in the table.

Table 3: Retrieved papers from PubMed database search are, grouped in accordance with bond strength (BS) tests, type of ceramics, surface treatment method (STM), resin cements and results for BS improvement.

Reference number
BS method
Type of ceramics
STM
Resin cement
Results

[1]
MTBS
ZirCAD and

ProCAD
50 µm Al₂O3 AA + 2.6 nm ; 50 µm Al₂O3 AA + 23 nm ; CoJet
C and B cement
2.6 nm > CoJet =   23 nm > Ctrl

[3]
Shear
Empress II,

In-Ceram,

and ZrO₂
Flame treatment (2.5 s/cm²),

(5 s/cm²), and

(10 s/cm²) + silane.

Empress II- HF + silane
Variolink II
HF + silane yielded the best BS

[4, 5, 25]
MTBS
In-

Ceram
110 µm Al₂O3 AA, CoJet, and Rocatec; all silanated
Panavia F
CoJet = Rocatec > 110 µm Al₂O3 AA

[8]
Shear
Y-TZP
HF; 50 µm Al₂O3 AA; diamond abrasion
Enforce
AA > diamond abrasion > Ctrl > HF

[9]
TBS
GN-1 ceramic

block
70 µm Al₂O3 AA
Bistite II and Tokuso Ceramic Primer; Linkmax and GC Ceramic Primer; Rely-X ARC and Rely-X Ceramic Primer; Panavia F and Clearfil Ceramic Primer; Resicem and Shofu Porcelain Primer or AZ Primer
Primer

enhanced BS except the AZ Primer

[10]
Microshear
Y-TZP
53 µm Al₂O3 AA; YAG laser
Variolink II and Monobond-S;

NAC-100 and SCP-100
Variolink II: control yielded the best BS

NAC-100: AA = laser = ctrl

[11]
Shear
Y-TZP
Silica coating; 50 µm Al₂O3 AA; MPS and/or 4-META silanes
Panavia F and SuperBonder
SuperBonder: MPS = 4-META

Panavia F: MPS > 4-META

[12]
Shear
Y-TZP
TBC + primers
Rely-X ARC, epricord opaque primer; AZ Primer
All primers yelded BS

[13, 26]
Micro

shear
Y-TZP

In-Ceram
100 µm Al₂O3 AA; HF glass pearls
Panavia F and Clearfil Porcelain Bond
In Ceram: HF = AA > ctrl

Cercon: AA > Ctrl > HF

[17]
Shear
Y-TZP
53 µm Al₂O3 AA; Er : YAG laser; primers
Calibra, Panavia F
AA + primers yelded high BS

[20]
TBS
Y-TZP
AA; silanated; silica coated; acrylized; MDP; polyacid-modified composite
Panavia
MDP > acrylized > polyacid-modified composite > silica coated > silanated = AA

[21]
Shear
Y-TZP
AA + MDP silane; AA + silane
Rely-X ARC, Panavia F
MDP silane assured higher BS for both RCs

[22]
MTBS
Y-TZP
125 µm Al₂O3 AA, TBC
Calibra; Clearfil Esthetic; Rely-X Unicem
Clearfil Esthetic yelded the best BS

[23]
Shear
Y-TZP
125 µm Al₂O3 AA, Clearfil silanes, MDP solution, and CoJet
Panavia F
CoJet + MDP + silane = CoJet + silane = CoJet > Ctrl = MDP + silane = silane

[27]
Shear
Y-TZP
MDP; zirconia primer
Clapearl DC
MDP = zirconia primer = MDP + zirconia primer

[29]
Shear
Y-TZP
Organo

silane
Rely-X ARC, experimental resin
Only isocyanatopropyltriethoxysilane does not improve BS

[33, 74]
MTBS
Y-TZP
SIE and zirconia primer
Panavia F
SIE + primer > Ctrl. SIE + primer decreased BS with aging

[35]
TBS and Shear
In-Ceram
HF; CoJet; 25 µm Al₂O3 AA. All silanated
Z-100 resin applied directly to ZrO₂ surface
CoJet > AA > HF

[37]
MTBS
In-Ceram
HF; CoJet, Silane; Al₂O3 AA.
Resin block
CoJet + silane yelded the best BS

[38]
Shear

HF; 25 µm Al₂O3 AA; bur grinding
Panavia 21, Twinlook, and Super-bond
Grinding + Superbond showed the best BS

[39]
MTBS
Y-TZP
125 µm Al₂O3 AA, CoJet
Calibra, Clearfil cement, and Rely-X Unicem
Phosphate monomer-containing cement (Clearfil) > other RCs, irrespective of STMs

[40]
Shear
Y-TZP
50 µm Al₂O3 AA; Korox; Rocatec; flame treatment
Panavia F
No significant differences

[41, 42, 44, 46, 58]
Shear
Y-TZP
Al₂O3 AA
Alloy Primer; Super Bond

Monomer; Metal Primer II; Panavia F, Superbonder
Primers improve BS

[45]
Shear
Y-TZP
Zirconia primer; zirconia primer heat treatment (45°C; 79°C; 100°C)
Panavia F
Heat treatment of zirconia

primer improved the early bond strength

[52]
Shear
Y-TZP
Plasma; silanized glass pearls
Variolink II
Glass pearls > Plasma

[57]
TBS
Y-TZP
50 µm Al₂O3 AA; air-powder-water spray
Variolink II; Panavia F, Heliobond
AA > air-powder-water spray

[61]
Shear
Y-TZP
Rocatec
Ketac-Cem;

Nexus; Superbond;

Panavia 21; Panavia F; Rely-X Unicem
Panavia 21 yelded the best BS

[62]
TBS
Y-TZP
AA; AA + HF; silica coating
Z100
AA = AA + HF > silica coating

[65]
Shear
Y-TZP
70 µm Al₂O3 AA; SiC blasted
Zinc phosphate, glass ionomer, and Adhesive resin
Adhesive resin yelded the best BS

[66]
Shear
Digizon-A
Silica coating; 30 µm Al₂O3 AA; silanized
Panavia EX; Panavia F 2.0; Rely-X Unicem; Bifix QM; Dual Cement; Duo Cement Plus; Multilink Automix; ParaCem; Rely-X ARC; Variolink Ultra; Variolink II
Bifix QM + silica coating yelded the best BS

[67]
Shear
Y-TZP
Rocatec; silanized (Espe Sil); Epricode; α-alumina
Rely-X ARC
The silane, Espe Sil yelded the best BS

[69]
Shear
Y-TZP
110 µm Al₂O3 AA
Fuji I; Ketac Cem Easymix; Fuji Plus; RelyX Luting; Principle; Ionotite F; Panavia F; Rely-X Unicem
Panavia F = Principle > Fuji Plus= Rely-X Unicem > Rely-X Luting = Ketac Cem> FujiI > Ionotite F

[73]
Pull out
Y-TZP
110 µm Al₂O3 AA; silanized glass pearls
Zinc phosphate, Panavia 21, and Variolink II
Glass pearls > AA

[76]
Shear
Y-TZP
50 µm Al₂O3 AA
BisCem; Rely-X Unicem; G-Cem; Maxcem; Clearfil SA
AA > Ctrl. G-Cem + AA yielded the best BS

[77]
Shear
Y-TZP
AA; silica coating; diamond abrasion. HF; silane; zirconia primer
Resin cement
silicoated + silanated > diamond abrasion + zirconia primer >

AA + silanated > zirconia primer > AA + zirconia primer

[60]
MTBS
Y-TZP
Silica coating; MDP; silane
Panavia F
Silica coating + silane > silica coating + MDP = Ctrl

[71]
Shear
Y-TZP
AA; YAG laser-irradiated; glaze applied + HF
Clearfil Esthetic Cement
Laser irradiated > glaze applied + HF = AA = Ctrl

[75]
Shear
Y-TZP
CoJet; glaze + HF; glaze + CoJet. All silanized
Panavia F
Glaze + HF > glaze + CoJet = CoJet

[72]
Shear
Y-TZP
AA; CoJet; Er : YAG laser; AA + Er : YAG laser
Rely-X U100, Clearfil Esthetic Cement, and Panavia F
Er : YAG showed lower bond strengths irrespective of

RC

[78]
MTBS
Y-TZP
TBC; TBC + zirconia primer
Clearfil Esthetic Cement and Panavia F
TBC + zirconia primer > TBC

MTBS: microtensile bond strength; TBS: tensile bond strength; SIE: selective infiltration etching; AA: air-abrasion; Ctrl: control groups with no STM; RC: resin cement; HF: hydrofluoric acid etching; TBC: tribochemical treatment.

The following sections are based on the types of STMs for ZrO₂. Treatments were divided into chemical surface treatments, mechanical surface treatments, and alternative treatments.

4. Chemical Surface Treatments

4.1. Hydrofluoric Acid Etching

The most common STM for AC to ceramic restorations is based either on micromechanical bond obtained with HF etching, particles sandblasting or on chemical bond, obtained by the application of a silane coupling agent [15]. HF removes the glassy matrix of glass ceramics creating a high surface energy substrate with microporosities for the penetration and polymerization of resin composites, that is, enabling a micromechanical interlocking [7]. However, HF etching does not produce any change in arithmetic roughness (Ra) of ZrO₂ [36]. The negligible effect of the HF on the ZrO₂ surface occurs due to the absence of glassy matrix, resulting in low bond strength values [2, 35, 37, 38].

4.2. Functional Monomers

Special functional monomers have been used to improve the adhesion to ZrO₂. These materials present a chemical affinity for metal oxides and can be included both in resin cement and adhesives or applied directly over the ceramic surface [17]. Phosphate ester monomers, such as 10-methacryloyloxyidecyl-dihyidrogenphosphate (MDP), chemically react with ZrO₂, promoting a water-resistant bond to densely sintered zirconia ceramics [20]. MDP-based resin cement is advocated as mandatory for better adhesion to ZrO₂ [21, 22, 39], but some studies do not show bond advantages over conventional BIS-GMA based resin cement [17, 40]. A phosphonic acid monomer, 6-methacryloyloxyhexyl phosphonoacetate (6-MHPA), showed some form of chemical bonding to zirconia surface [9], but there is no data available regarding the effect of 6-MHPA on the resin bond strength to zirconia ceramics after severe aging conditions [9]. Another monomer commonly used in ceramic primer materials, such as MEPS (thiophosphoric methacrylate), have been tested but with no clear advantages [17, 40]. Some nonphosphate metal primers were tested such as 6-[4-vinylbenzyl-n-propyl]amino-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithione  (VBATDT), 6-methacryloyloxyhexyl-2-thiouracil-5-carboxylate (MTU-6), 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic anhydride (4-META), and phosphoric acid acrylate monomers, allowing additional chemical bond with zirconium/metal oxides [17, 41, 42].

The surface treatment with primers containing functional monomers such as MDP (e.g., Alloy Primer and Clearfil Ceramic Primer, Kuraray Medical Inc., Japan) or other phosphoric acid acrylate monomer (e.g., Metal/Zirconia Primer, Ivoclar-Vivadent) are often recommended to improve the bonding to ZrO₂. Since results are not always significant, the combination of primers and air-abrasion methods tend to produce better bond strength, especially in longterm [12, 42–45]. The use of new zirconia primers (a mixture of organophosphate and carboxylic acid monomers) or a phosphonic acid monomer (6-MHPA) has been tested showing good immediate results [9, 46].

4.3. Silane Coupling Agents

Silane coupling agents or more precisely trialkoxysilanes are hybrid inorganic-organic bifunctional molecules that are able to create a siloxane network with the hydroxyl (OH) of the Si in the ceramic surface and copolymerize with the resin matrix of composites; also, silanes lower the surface tension of a substrate, wet it, and make its surface energy higher [47]. Thus, a hydrophobic matrix (resin composite) can adhere to hydrophilic surfaces, such as silica, glass, and glassceramics [29]. Different types of silanes have been studied, but none of them were able to show high effectiveness in surfaces with absent or reduced Si content as the surface of ZrO₂ [20, 41, 48–52]. In addition, siloxane bonds may be sensitive to hydrolytic degradation, affecting the stability of the adhesive interface [20, 39, 53]. Organosilanes were also tested (3-methacryloyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-acryloyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, or 3-isocyanatopropyltriethoxysilane) with better results for the two first ones [29]. The silane organofunctional groups are generally a methacrylate molecule, but acrylate groups are known to be more reactive than methacrylates [29]. The 3-isocyanatopropyltriethoxysilane is a rare silane, which has not been reported to be used as adhesion promoters in dental materials research.

5. Mechanical Surface Treatments

5.1. Air-Abrasion with Aluminum Oxide Particles

Air-abrasion with aluminum oxide particles (Al₂O₃) has been studied since the nineties and its effectiveness is closely related to the sandblasted ceramic surface and the air abrasion method. Through a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation in 2003, Borges et al. [7] showed that the air-abrasion with 50 μm Al₂O₃ during 5 s at 4-bar pressure is able to create irregularities on the surface of glass ceramics; however, the same procedure did not change the surface of In-Ceram Alumina, In-Ceram Zirconia, and Procera.

During an evaluation with an optical profilometer, Della Bona et al. [36] showed an increase in the arithmetic roughness (Ra) of In-Ceram Zirconia (from 207 nm to 1000 nm) after the use of 25 μm Al₂O₃ air-abrasion at a distance of 10 mm for 15 s, at a pressure of 2.8 bars. de Oyagüe et al. [22] employed 125 μm Al₂O₃ air-abrasion for 10 s at approximately 5-bar pressure, which resulted in 45.77 nm for Ra, against 9.39 nm of the control group (notreatment), on a yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP) material (Cercon Zirconia, Dentsply). On the other hand, working with similar ceramics (Lava, 3 M-ESPE), Casucci et al. [54] observed just 7.11 nm for Ra against 6.94 nm on the control group (notreatment).

Since greater roughness was produced over different ZrO₂ based materials, the air-abrasion method must take this fact into consideration. In-Ceram Zirconia should not be classified as pure zirconia ceramics since it is composed of 63% of alumina, 32% of zirconia, and 4% of glass matrix [36]. In addition, alumina is less ductile than zirconia, with larger grains and higher surface hardness, which makes air-abrasion more effective [55]. Contradictory results from the studies of de Oyagüe et al. [22] and Casucci et al. [54] may be possibly related to the different ceramic brands they used.

When it comes to abrasion with Al₂O₃, a wide range of particle size, pressure, distance from ceramic surface, working time, and impact angle have been studied. These differences can help explain contradictory results. Although studies consider the previous factors important [56], the type of the ZrO₂ ceramics may be mandatory. On a yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP) material, the use of greater particle size (from 50 μm to 150 μm) results in a rougher surface but no significant alteration in bond strength [41]. Evaluating a Y-TZP, Cavalcanti et al. [17] showed an increase in bond strength after air-abrasion with 50 μm Al₂O₃ for 15 seconds at 2.5 bars. With similar ceramics de Oyagüe et al. [22] showed that air-abrasion did not produce higher bond strength, even though the substrate surface became rougher than the control group (as shown in the previous paragraph). Several studies have shown low bond strength values with air-abrasion [20, 39, 54, 57] or even spontaneous debonding after artificial aging (150 days of water storage and repeated thermocycling) on the association of airborne particle abrasion, silane application, and Bis-GMA resin cement [20]. According to Kern et al. [58] air-abrasion without primers can result in higher initial bond strength to zirconia ceramics that will be reduced to zero in long-term evaluation, independent of air-abrasion application pressure.

5.2. Si Deposition Methods

Si deposition methods started in 1984 with the silicoater technology [13], and in 1989 the Rocatec system, a laboratory device, was developed and later the CoJet system, a chairside device was introduced into the market [59]. These systems are based on the use of 110 μm (Rocatec) or 30 μm (CoJet) Si-coated alumina particles that are blasted onto the ceramic surface. Sandblasted ceramics acquires a reactive Si-rich outer surface prone to silanization and the following AC with suitable resin composites. Its use requires silane application before cementation [28, 60]. The tribochemical Si-coating on ceramic surfaces increases the bond strength of resin cement to glass-infiltrated ZrO₂ [5, 24, 59] or Y-TZP [61–64]. Usually, 2.5–2.8-bar air-abrasion pressures are used [4, 23]; however, higher pressure results in higher bond strength with CoJet [55]. In spite of that, some studies still show similar shear bond strength with and without Si-coating by air-abrasion methods [65].

Si deposition by air-abrasion might produce a more silane reactive surface [66], but it also tends to produce a surface with lower roughness and consequently lower possibility of mechanical interlocking with resin cement [22, 29]. Some authors do not show lower roughness [67], but considering this might be a true observation; the enabled chemical interaction to resin cement or coupling agents would justify its use [68].

6. Alternative Treatments

Different alternative methods to treat ZrO₂ surfaces have been proposed and evaluated in order to produce a reliable adhesion, especially in long term. A large range of mechanical, chemical, or both approaches have been tried to modify the ZrO₂ surface to increase the surface bond area, surface energy, or wettability [69].

Plasma spraying (hexamethyldisiloxane) using a reactor (Plasma Electronic, Germany), proposed in a previous study [52], increased the bond strength of resin cement to ZrO₂. The authors related that plasma is a partially ionized gas containing ions, electrons, atoms, and neutral species. However, the mechanism of surface modification and rise of the bond strength remain unclear, and the authors suggested that the improvement in bond strength might be explained by covalent bonds [52].

Some studies have suggested the use of erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) or CO₂ laser to enhance the bond strength to resin cement [17, 30, 70, 71]; therefore, the effect of laser on the ZrO₂ could be tested with the same aim. Laser application removed particles by microexplosions and by vaporization, a process called ablation. However, bond strength results indicated that the effect of laser irradiation is contradictory. While some studies concluded that lasers are not effective to improve the bond strength between ZrO₂ and resin cement [17, 30, 72], recent research shows the improvement of adhesion after CO₂ laser application in comparison to conventional STM and indicates this technique as an alternative method for bonding to ZrO₂ surfaces.

The applications of micropearls of low fusing porcelain or vapor deposition of silicon tetrachloride (SiCl₄) are other types of silicatization methods that have been used, showing improved bond strength [52, 73].

However, the most innovative STM for ZrO₂ was introduced by Aboushelib et al. in 2006 and tested with respect to microtensile bond strength in 2007 [31]. This method was named selective infiltration etching (SIE) and uses principles of heat-induced maturation and grain boundary diffusion to transform the relatively smooth nonretentive surface of Y-TZP into a highly retentive surface. A low temperature molting glass is applied on selected ZrO₂ surfaces and submitted to a heat-induced infiltration process, determining zirconia crystal rearrangements. After that, the glass is removed with a 5% hydrofluoric acid solution bath, leaving intergrain nanoporosities where low-viscosity resin materials may flow and interlock after polymerization [31]. This method was tested in association with MDP-based resin cement, providing high and durable bond strength [31, 32], and with previous application of zirconia primers, providing increased initial bond strength [74] but not a stable bond with artificial aging [33].

Recent studies has shown promising results on bond strengths of Y-TZP/resin cement after glazed ceramic surface is subjected to air-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide and silanization [1] or etching with hydrofluoric acid [75], but a stable bond promoted by these methods is questionable and needs more studies.

Irrespective of the possibility of producing a rough surface with air-abrasion or SIE, these methods still do not completely assure better or durable bond strength, as it could be seen. To overcome this issue, it is clear that micromechanical plus chemical adhesion strategies should be used.

7. Discussion

Several surface treatment methods have been proposed to overcome intrinsic acid resistance of ZrO₂; however, these methods have presented controversial results about their effectiveness on bond strength improvement. Nonetheless it seems important to select multifunctional methods, which mix the ability to create a rough surface for micromechanical interlocking and increase the surface area to establish chemical bond with reactive substances. When testing self-adhesive luting resin cement containing a functional phosphate monomer, Yang et al. [42] showed reliable bond strength after air-abrasion at 2.5 bars or the combination of low pressure air-abrasion and priming with MDP-containing primers. Therefore, air-abrasion seems to be important even when working with phosphate monomer resin cement [44] or with conventional self-adhesive resin cement [76]. If conventional resin cement is to be used, primer application seems mandatory for durable adhesion [58].

STM development shows the need for producing high roughness and chemical interaction on ZrO₂ ceramic surfaces. According to the analysis of the selected papers it could be seen that the use of Al₂O₃ air-abrasion followed by application of phosphate monomers-based primers or resin cement tends to produce more reliable results [13, 39, 42, 57, 61]. However, SIE also produces a rough surface, with optimal surface energy and interaction with resin cement [31], with the advantage of being user-controlled and depth-limited.

Similar to phosphate monomer solutions/cements, the use of metal primers can also establish chemical bond with zirconia [17]. Magne et al. [46] showed promising results with a special designed zirconia primer solution. An important point is that a functional monomer is not necessary in the resin luting agent if it is contained in the primer [21]. Optimal results were found with MDP-based resin cement [32]. However, when working with Bis-GMA based resin cement, Si-coating plus silane application produces good results [61, 77]. In addition, according to Kern et al. [58] the use of primers for conventional resin cement will result in long-term bond strength after air-abrasion. Thereby, adhesion to ZrO₂ seems mainly promoted by chemical bonds, either through hydrogen bonds between the polar functional groups of the polymers or monomers in the cement and the polar hydroxyl groups available on ZrO₂ surface or between siloxane bonds on ZrO₂ Si-coated surfaces. Therefore the main function of air-abrasion is to clean and increase the surface area [12, 42, 58], creating the conditions to establish the chemical bonds.

Even with a significant increase of Si ratio (76%) at the surface after Si-coating via air-abrasion (CoJet system) [36], which may enhance bonding to resin by silane coupling, Si-coated surfaces of In-Ceram Zirconia remain almost similar to their original state since an increase from 1.25% to only 2.21% of Si could be noted on the ZrO₂ surface [36]. Y-TZP Si-coated surfaces showed 4.2% of Si (by weight) and 11.2% atomic concentration [29]. The presence of Si is a prerequisite for durable siloxane bonding, and so on, some authors considered the above mentioned Si concentrations at zirconia surfaces too silicon-poor for durable bonding [29]. However, Inokoshi et al. [78] showed that the combination of Si-coating via air-abrasion (CoJet system) and zirconia primers presents durable bond to ZrO₂.

Glass pearls or silicon tetrachloride (SiCl₄) vapor deposition is new methods that deserve more research considering the ability to increase Si-concentration [1, 73]. This information reinforces the importance of the chemical bonds for a durable and reliable adhesion between the substrates (resin cement and ZrO₂).

On a Si-coated surface, silane bonding could be complemented by the use of monomers with metal affinity, such as MDP, present in metal and ceramic primers. However, previous silane application would prevent the contact between these functional monomers and the ceramic surface avoiding the hydrogen bond formation, except when the silane solution is mixed with MDP (e.g., Kuraray’s Clearfil Repair Kit) [29]. With MDP-resin cement, Atsu et al. [23] proved this assumption, showing that tribochemical Si-coating (CoJet System) and the application of an MDP-containing bonding/silane coupling agent mixture increased the shear bond strength. In addition, according to Tanaka et al. [67] stable shear bond strength can be achieved on Si-coated Y-TZP with the cooperative interaction of hydrogen bond formed between phosphate monomer and ZrO₂ and silane coupling to SiO₂ incorporated to ceramic surface. In this case, silane application will increase ceramic surface wettability for the resin cement rather than establishing siloxane bonds.

Collected observations from all analyzed studies are sometimes conflicting, and this may be specially caused by different testing methods. Table 3 summarized the testing methods, and although most of them employed microtensile tests (the most suitable one for bond strength testing [79]), results are still controversial; thus, more work is necessary to draw definitive conclusions. Based on state-of-the-art concepts, Table 4 contains suggested STM protocols for the AC of ZrO₂ ceramic restorations.

Table 4: Guide to suggested STM for ZrO₂ ceramics.

Ceramics type
Commercial brands
STM
Primers/silane
Resin cement (RC)

Y-TZP ZrO₂
Lava, Cercon, Emax ZIR-CAD, Procera Zirconia

50–150 µm Al₂O3 air-abrasion, with 2.5 bars, 10 mm distance, for 15 seconds
—
Phosphate monomer containing RC (Rely-X U200, Panavia F, and Panavia 2.1)

Phosphate monomer containing solutions: Alloy Primer, Clearfil Ceramic Primer, or Kuraray’s Clearfil Repair Kit
Dual or chemical cured RC (check compatibility with previous applied solutions)

Glass infiltrated ZrO₂
In-Ceram Zirconia
25 µm Al₂O₃ air-abrasion with 2.8 bars, 10 mm distance, for 15 s.
—
Phosphate monomer containing RC (Rely-X U200, Panavia F, and Panavia 2.1)

Air-abrasion with Si-coating Al₂O₃ particles (CoJet or Rocatec system), at 4.5 bars, 10 mm distance, for 10 s.
Phosphate monomer containing solutions: Alloy Primer, Clearfil Ceramic Primer, or Kuraray’s Clearfil Repair Kit
Dual or chemical cured RC (check compatibility with previous applied solutions)

As a final consideration, it is always important to emphasize that the composition of the ZrO₂ to be used is critical when choosing the best surface treatment. In addition, distance, pressure, working time, and particle’s composition of air abrasion must be carefully observed. The type of the resin cement may be defined by the type of STM, depending on the compatibility of the selected functional monomer or on the creation of a siloxane bond after considering the presence and quantity of Si at ZrO₂ surface.

8. Conclusions

According the reviewed literature it was possible to conclude that

(1)STMs must be correlated to the type of ZrO₂ and the selected resin cement; (2)airborne-particle abrasion combined with a resin composite containing phosphate monomers or tribochemical Si-coating plus silane (with functional monomers) coating combined with conventional Bis-GMA resin cement could be considered the best STMs;(3)primer development seems to be an effective method to improve bond strength to ZrO₂;(4)alternative STMs (selective infiltration etching or Si-coating or plasma treatment) have presented considerable surface alterations and have shown promising results; however, further studies are necessary.

Disclosure

The authors disclose no commercial interest in products or companies mentioned in the paper.

References

J. R. Piascik, E. J. Swift, J. Y. Thompson, S. Grego, and B. R. Stoner, “Surface modification for enhanced silanation of zirconia ceramics,” Dental Materials, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1116–1121, 2009.

M. B. Blatz, A. Sadan, and M. Kern, “Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 268–274, 2003.

R. Janda, J. F. Roulet, M. Wulf, and H. J. Tiller, “A new adhesive technology for all-ceramics,” Dental Materials, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 567–573, 2003.

R. Amaral, M. Özcan, L. F. Valandro, I. Balducci, and M. A. Bottino, “Effect of conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of phosphate monomer-based cement on zirconia ceramic in dry and aged conditions,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research B, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2008.

M. A. Bottino, L. F. Valandro, R. Scotti, and L. Buso, “Effect of surface treatments on the resin bond to zirconium-based ceramic,” International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 60–65, 2005.

A. Della Bona and K. J. Anusavice, “Microstructure, composition, and etching topography of dental ceramics,” International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 159–167, 2002.

G. A. Borges, A. M. Sophr, M. F. de Goes, L. C. Sobrinho, and D. C. N. Chan, “Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 479–488, 2003.

W. Awliya, A. Odén, P. Yaman, J. B. Dennison, and M. E. Razzoog, “Shear bond strength of a resin cement to densely sintered high-purity alumina with various surface conditions,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 9–13, 1998.

S. Kitayama, T. Nikaido, R. Takahashi et al., “Effect of primer treatment on bonding of resin cements to zirconia ceramic,” Dental Materials, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 426–432, 2010.

R. M. Foxton, A. N. Cavalcanti, M. Nakajima et al., “Durability of resin cement bond to aluminium oxide and zirconia ceramics after air abrasion and laser treatment,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 84–92, 2011.

M. Özcan, C. Cura, and L. F. Valandro, “Early bond strength of two resin cements to Y-TZP ceramic using MPS or MPS/4-META silanes,” Odontology, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 62–67, 2011.

K. Takeuchi, A. Fujishima, A. Manabe et al., “Combination treatment of tribochemical treatment and phosphoric acid ester monomer of zirconia ceramics enhances the bonding durability of resin-based luting cements,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 316–323, 2010.

S. M. P. Torres, G. A. Borges, A. M. Spohr, A. A. D. B. Cury, S. Yadav, and J. A. Platt, “The effect of surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength of a resin luting agent and four all-ceramic systems,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 399–407, 2009.

F. J. T. Burke, G. J. P. Fleming, D. Nathanson, and P. M. Marquis, “Are adhesive technologies needed to support ceramics? An assessment of the current evidence,” Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7–22, 2002.

C. J. Soares, P. V. Soares, J. C. Pereira, and R. B. Fonseca, “Surface treatment protocols in the cementation process of ceramic and laboratory-processed composite restorations: a literature review,” Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 224–235, 2005.

C. J. Soares, L. R. M. Martins, R. B. Fonseca, L. Correr-Sobrinho, and A. J. Fernandes Neto, “Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 421–429, 2006.

A. N. Cavalcanti, R. M. Foxton, T. F. Watson, M. T. Oliveira, M. Giannini, and G. M. Marchi, “Bond strength of resin cements to a zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 280–287, 2009.

S. M. Wegner and M. Kern, “Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic,” Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 139–147, 2000.

S. M. Wegner and M. Kern, “Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic,” Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 327–328, 2004.

M. Kern and S. M. Wegner, “Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability,” Dental Materials, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 1998.

M. B. Blatz, A. Sadan, J. Martin, and B. Lang, “In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths of resin to densely-sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic after long-term storage and thermal cycling,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 356–362, 2004.

R. C. de Oyagüe, F. Monticelli, M. Toledano, E. Osorio, M. Ferrari, and R. Osorio, “Influence of surface treatments and resin cement selection on bonding to densely-sintered zirconium-oxide ceramic,” Dental Materials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 172–179, 2009.

S. S. Atsu, M. A. Kilicarslan, H. C. Kucukesmen, and P. S. Aka, “Effect of zirconium-oxide ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength to adhesive resin,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 430–436, 2006.

L. F. Valandro, M. Özcan, M. C. Bottino, et al., “Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: the effect of surface conditioning,” Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 175–181, 2006.

R. Amaral, M. Özcan, M. A. Bottino, and L. F. Valandro, “Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: the effect of surface conditioning,” Dental Materials, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 283–290, 2006.

M. Özcan and P. K. Vallittu, “Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics,” Dental Materials, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 725–731, 2003.

K. Yoshida, Y. Tsuo, and M. Atsuta, “Bonding of dual-cured resin cement to zirconia ceramic using phosphate acid ester monomer and zirconate coupler,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research B, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 28–33, 2006.

J. P. Matinlinna, L. V. J. Lassila, and P. K. Vallittu, “Pilot evaluation of resin composite cement adhesion to zirconia using a novel silane system,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 44–51, 2007.

J. P. Matinlinna, T. Heikkinen, M. Özcan, L. V. J. Lassila, and P. K. Vallittu, “Evaluation of resin adhesion to zirconia ceramic using some organosilanes,” Dental Materials, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 824–831, 2006.

B. Ersu, B. Yuzugullu, A. Ruya Yazici, and S. Canay, “Surface roughness and bond strengths of glass-infiltrated alumina-ceramics prepared using various surface treatments,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 848–856, 2009.

M. N. Aboushelib, C. J. Kleverlaan, and A. J. Feilzer, “Selective infiltration-etching technique for a strong and durable bond of resin cements to zirconia-based materials,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 379–388, 2007.

M. N. Aboushelib, A. J. Feilzer, and C. J. Kleverlaan, “Bonding to zirconia using a new surface treatment,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 340–346, 2010.

M. N. Aboushelib, H. Mirmohamadi, J. P. Matinlinna, E. Kukk, H. F. Ounsi, and Z. Salameh, “Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials. Part II: focusing on chemical interactions,” Dental Materials, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 989–993, 2009.

J. W. McLean and T. H. Hughes, “The reinforcement of dental porcelain with ceramic oxides,” British Dental Journal, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 251–267, 1965.

A. Della Bona, M. Borba, P. Benetti, and D. Cecchetti, “Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of a zirconia-reinforced ceramic to composite resin,” Brazilian Oral Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 10–15, 2007.

A. Della Bona, T. A. Donassollo, F. F. Demarco, A. A. Barrett, and J. J. Mecholsky Jr., “Characterization and surface treatment effects on topography of a glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia-reinforced ceramic,” Dental Materials, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 769–775, 2007.

T. A. Donassollo, F. F. Demarco, and A. Della Bona, “Resin bond strength to a zirconia-reinforced ceramic after different surface treatments,” General Dentistry, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 374–379, 2009.

P. Dérand and T. Dérand, “Bond strength of luting cements to zirconium oxide ceramics,” International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 131–135, 2000.

R. C. Oyagüe, F. Monticelli, M. Toledano, E. Osorio, M. Ferrari, and R. Osorio, “Effect of water aging on microtensile bond strength of dual-cured resin cements to pre-treated sintered zirconium-oxide ceramics,” Dental Materials, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 392–399, 2009.

M. Özcan, H. Nijhuis, and L. F. Valandro, “Effect of various surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional monomer to zirconia after thermal aging,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 99–104, 2008.

Y. Tsuo, K. Yoshida, and M. Atsuta, “Effects of alumina-blasting and adhesive primers on bonding between resin luting agent and zirconia ceramics,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 669–674, 2006.

B. Yang, A. Barloi, and M. Kern, “Influence of air-abrasion on zirconia ceramic bonding using an adhesive composite resin,” Dental Materials, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 44–50, 2010.

F. Lehmann and M. Kern, “Durability of resin bonding to zirconia ceramic using different primers,” The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 479–483, 2009.

J. Y. Yun, S. R. Ha, J. B. Lee, and S. H. Kim, “Effect of sandblasting and various metal primers on the shear bond strength of resin cement to Y-TZP ceramic,” Dental Materials, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 650–658, 2010.

L. Silva, A. Costa, J. Queiroz, M. Bottino, and L. Valandro, “Ceramic primer heat-treatment effect on resin cement/Y-TZP bond strength,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 634–640, 2012.

P. Magne, M. P. G. Paranhos, and L. H. Burnett Jr., “New zirconia primer improves bond strength of resin-based cements,” Dental Materials, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 345–352, 2010.

J. P. Matinlinna, L. V. J. Lassila, M. Özcan, A. Yli-Urpo, and P. K. Vallittu, “An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry,” International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 155–164, 2004.

N. Barghi, “To silanate or not to silanate: making a clinical decision,” Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 659–666, 2000.

R. Frankenberger, N. Krämer, and J. Sindel, “Repair strength of etched vs silica-coated metal-ceramic and all-ceramic restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 209–215, 2000.

H. R. Horn, “Porcelain laminate veneers bonded to etched enamel,” Dental Clinics of North America, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 671–684, 1983.

K. J. M. Soderholm and S. W. Shang, “Molecular orientation of siliane at the surface of colloidal silica,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 1050–1054, 1993.

T. Derand, M. Molin, and K. Kvam, “Bond strength of composite luting cement to zirconia ceramic surfaces,” Dental Materials, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1158–1162, 2005.

L. F. Valandro, M. Özcan, R. Amaral, F. P. P. Leite, and M. A. Bottino, “Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to silica-coated and silanized in-ceram zirconia before and after aging,” International Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 70–72, 2007.

A. Casucci, E. Osorio, R. Osorio et al., “Influence of different surface treatments on surface zirconia frameworks,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 891–897, 2009.

T. T. Heikkinen, L. V. J. Lassila, J. P. Matinlinna, and P. K. Vallittu, “Effect of operating air pressure on tribochemical silica-coating,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 241–248, 2007.

M. Kern and V. P. Thompson, “Sandblasting and silica-coating of dental alloys: volume loss, morphology and changes in the surface composition,” Dental Materials, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 155–161, 1993.

M. Wolfart, F. Lehmann, S. Wolfart, and M. Kern, “Durability of the resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic after using different surface conditioning methods,” Dental Materials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 45–50, 2007.

M. Kern, A. Barloi, and B. Yang, “Surface conditioning influences zirconia ceramic bonding,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 817–822, 2009.

M. Kern and V. P. Thompson, “Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 240–249, 1995.

C. Chen, C. J. Kleverlaan, and A. J. Feilzer, “Effect of an experimental zirconia-silica coating technique on micro tensile bond strength of zirconia in different priming conditions,” Dental Materials, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. e127–e134, 2012.

H. Lüthy, O. Loeffel, and C. H. F. Hammerle, “Effect of thermocycling on bond strength of luting cements to zirconia ceramic,” Dental Materials, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 195–200, 2006.

B. K. Kim, H. E. K. Bae, J. S. Shim, and K. W. Lee, “The influence of ceramic surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of composite resin to all-ceramic coping materials,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 357–362, 2005.

D. Re, D. Augusti, I. Sailer, D. Spreafico, and A. Cerutti, “The effect of surface treatment on the adhesion of resin cements to Y-TZP,” The European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 186–196, 2008.

A. Piwowarczyk, H. C. Lauer, and J. A. Sorensen, “The shear bond strength between luting cements and zirconia ceramics after two pre-treatments,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 382–388, 2005.

M. Uo, G. Sjögren, A. Sundh, M. Goto, F. Watari, and M. Bergman, “Effect of surface condition of dental zirconia ceramic (Denzir) on bonding,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 626–631, 2006.

F. P. Nothdurft, P. J. Motter, and P. R. Pospiech, “Effect of surface treatment on the initial bond strength of different luting cements to zirconium oxide ceramic,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 229–235, 2009.

R. Tanaka, A. Fujishima, Y. Shibata, A. Manabe, and T. Miyazaki, “Cooperation of phosphate monomer and silica modification on zirconia,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 666–670, 2008.

M. B. Blatz, G. Chiche, S. Holst, and A. Sadan, “Influence of surface treatment and simulated aging on bond strengths of luting agents to zirconia,” Quintessence International, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 745–753, 2007.

M. J. Kim, Y. K. Kim, K. H. Kim, and T. Y. Kwon, “Shear bond strengths of various luting cements to zirconia ceramic: surface chemical aspects,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 795–803, 2011.

Ç. Ural, T. Külünk, Ş. Külünk, M. Kurt, and S. Baba, “Determination of resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic surface using different primers,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 48–53, 2011.

A. Usumez, N. Hamdemirci, B. Y. Koroglu, I. Simsek, O. Parlar, and T. Sari, “Bond strength of resin cement to zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 259–266, 2013.

M. G. Subasi and O. Inan, “Influence of surface treatments and resin cement selection on bonding to zirconia,” Lasers in Medical Science, 2012.

T. Derand, M. Molin, E. Kleven, P. Haag, and S. Karlsson, “Bond strength of luting materials to ceramic crowns after different surface treatments,” The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 35–38, 2008.

M. N. Aboushelib, J. P. Matinlinna, Z. Salameh, and H. Ounsi, “Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials: part I,” Dental Materials, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1268–1272, 2008.

A. Vanderlei, M. Bottino, and L. Valandro, “Evaluation of resin bond strength to yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia and framework marginal fit: comparison of different surface conditionings,” Operative Dentistry, 2013.

M. B. Blatz, J. H. Phark, F. Ozer et al., “In vitro comparative bond strength of contemporary self-adhesive resin cements to zirconium oxide ceramic with and without air-particle abrasion,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 187–192, 2010.

D. M. Qeblawi, C. A. Muñoz, J. D. Brewer, and E. A. Monaco Jr., “The effect of zirconia surface treatment on flexural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 210–220, 2010.

M. Inokoshi, A. Kameyama, J. de Munck, S. Minakuchi, and B. van Meerbeek, “Durable bonding to mechanically and/or chemically pre-treated dental zirconia,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 170–179, 2013.

H. Sano, “Microtensile testing, nanoleakage, and biodegradation of resin-dentin bonds,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 11–14, 2006.