Reliability of an Innovative Slab Shear versus Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Mechanical and Finite Element Analysis

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of slab shear bond strength test (Slab_SBS) versus the microtensile in evaluation of the bond strength of different substrates.

Materials and Methods Forty-eight extracted caries-free human third molars were utilized for teeth specimens' preparation. After flattening of all molars' occlusal table, the specimens were divided into two groups based on the type of utilized restorative material: nanohybrid resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI). Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups according to the subsequently applied bond strength test and specimen width; microtensile bond strength test (μTBS), Slab_SBS [2 mm] and Slab_SBS [3 mm]. Both testing methods were additionally applied on CAD/CAM specimens, nanohybrid resin composite blocks (composite-to-composite), and ceramic blocks (ceramic-to-ceramic). CAD/CAM specimens were prepared and cemented and then sectioned and subdivided as followed for teeth specimens' preparation. Pretest failures (PTF), bond strength, and failure mode of each specimen were recorded. Representative three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) models were developed to simulate μTBS and Slab_SBS specimens. Data were statistically analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk test and Weibull analysis.

Results Pretest failures were only noted in the μTBS subgroups. Slab_SBS provided comparable bond strength to the μTBS of all substrates with adhesive mode of failure.

Conclusion Slab_SBS is easier to prepare with consistent and predictable outcome with no pretest failures during specimen preparation and better stress distribution.

Publication History

Article published online:
14 April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Kern M. Bonding to oxide ceramics—laboratory testing versus clinical outcome. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (01) 8-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.06.007.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) e78-e93 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Tian T, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (07) e147-e162 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.017.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Sudsangiam S, van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose?. J Adhes Dent 1999; 1 (01) 57-67
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G. A critique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 1989; 17 (02) 61-67 DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(89)90131-0.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Braga RR, Meira JBC, Boaro LCC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) e38-e49 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.150.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Sultan H, Kelly JR, Kazemi RB. Investigating failure behavior and origins under supposed “shear bond” loading. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (07) 807-813 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.04.007.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Tantbirojn D, Cheng YS, Versluis A, Hodges JS, Douglas WH. Nominal shear or fracture mechanics in the assessment of composite-dentin adhesion?. J Dent Res 2000; 79 (01) 41-48 DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790010601.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 1995; 11 (02) 117-125 DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80046-8.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H. et al. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength–evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994; 10 (04) 236-240 DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(94)90067-1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Armstrong S, Breschi L, Özcan M, Pfefferkorn F, Ferrari M, Van Meerbeek B. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (02) 133-143 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.015.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Kusumasari C, Abdou A, Nakajima M, Tagami J. Deproteinization of caries-affected dentin with chemo-mechanical caries removal agents and its effect on dentin bonding with self-etch adhesives. J Dent 2021; 109: 103665 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103665.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Dwiandhany WS, Abdou A, Tichy A. et al. Additive effects of touch-activated polymerization and extended irradiation time on bonding of light-activated adhesives to root canal dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 127 (05) 750-758
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Lima JFM, Wajngarten D, Islam F, Clifford J, Botta AC. Effect of adhesive mode and chlorhexidine on microtensile strength of universal bonding agent to sound and caries-affected dentins. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 553-558 DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_239_18.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Brentel AS, Özcan M, Valandro LF, Alarça LG, Amaral R, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (11) 1323-1331 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.011.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Salem R, Naggar GE, Aboushelib M, Selim D. Microtensile bond strength of resin-bonded high translucency zirconia using different surface treatments. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18 (03) 191-196 DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a36034.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Aboushelib MN, de Jager N, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength of different components of core veneered all-ceramic restorations. Dent Mater 2005; 21 (10) 984-991 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.013.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Abdou A, Takahashi R, Saad A, Nozaki K, Nikaido T, Tagami J. Influence of resin-coating on bond strength of resin cements to dentin and CAD/CAM resin block in single-visit and multiple-visit treatment. Dent Mater J 2021; 40 (03) 674-682 DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2020-160.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Abdou A, Takagaki T, Alghamdi A, Tichy A, Nikaido T, Tagami J. Bonding performance of dispersed filler resin composite CAD/CAM blocks with different surface treatment protocols. Dent Mater J 2021; 40 (01) 209-219 DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2020-049.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 El Gezawi M, Haridy R, Abo Elazm E, Al-Harbi F, Zouch M, Kaisarly D. Microtensile bond strength, 4-point bending and nanoleakage of resin-dentin interfaces: effects of two matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018; 78: 206-213 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.024.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Ali A, Takagaki T, Naruse Y. et al. The effect of elapsed time following alumina blasting on adhesion of CAD/CAM resin block to dentin. Dent Mater J 2019; 38 (03) 354-360 DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-113.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Tichy A, Hosaka K, Bradna P. et al. Subsequent application of bonding agents to a one-step self-etch adhesive - its effect with/without previous light-curing. Dent Mater 2019; 35 (12) e299-e309 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.08.108.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Abo-Alazm EAE, Safy RK. Impact of immediate dentin sealing using universal adhesive under simulated pulp pressure on microtensile bond strength of indirect resin composite restorations and dentin permeability. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (03) 536-542 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735442.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Tichy A, Hosaka K, Abdou A, Nakajima M, Tagami J. Degree of conversion contributes to dentin bonding durability of contemporary universal adhesives. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (05) 556-566 DOI: 10.2341/19-165-L.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Saad A, Inoue G, Nikaido T. et al. Effect of dentin contamination with two hemostatic agents on bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement with different conditioning. Dent Mater J 2019; 38 (02) 257-263 DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-059.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Saad A, Inoue G, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Microtensile bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement to sound and artificial caries-affected root dentin with different conditioning. Oper Dent 2017; 42 (06) 626-635 DOI: 10.2341/16-375-L.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A. et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) e100-e121 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.148.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue - a review. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12 (05) 343-371 DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a19741.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Sano H, Chowdhury AFMA, Saikaew P, Matsumoto M, Hoshika S, Yamauti M. The microtensile bond strength test: its historical background and application to bond testing. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2020; 56 (01) 24-31 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2019.10.001.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LHA, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) e50-e62 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 El Zohairy AA, de Gee AJ, de Jager N, van Ruijven LJ, Feilzer AJ. The influence of specimen attachment and dimension on microtensile strength. J Dent Res 2004; 83 (05) 420-424 DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300513.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, Chan DCN. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89 (05) 479-488 DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(02)52704-9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Salvio LA, Correr-Sobrinho L, Consani S, Sinhoreti MAC, de Goes MF, Knowles JC. Effect of water storage and surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of IPS Empress 2 ceramic. J Prosthodont 2007; 16 (03) 192-199 DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00171.x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Guarda GB, Correr AB, Gonçalves LS. et al. Effects of surface treatments, thermocycling, and cyclic loading on the bond strength of a resin cement bonded to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Oper Dent 2013; 38 (02) 208-217 DOI: 10.2341/11-076-L.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Veríssimo AH, Moura DMD, Tribst JPM, Araújo AMM, Leite FPP, Souza ROAE. Effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration and etching time on resin-bond strength to different glass ceramics. Braz Oral Res 2019; 33: e041 DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0041.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Klaisiri A, Krajangta N, Thamrongananskul N. The durability of zirconia/resin composite shear bond strength using different functional monomer of universal adhesives. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (04) 756-760 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736331.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Sengul F, Gurbuz T, Sengul S. Finite element analysis of different restorative materials in primary teeth restorations. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2014; 15 (03) 317-322
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Yokoyama D, Shinya A, Gomi H, Vallittu PK, Shinya A. Effects of mechanical properties of adhesive resin cements on stress distribution in fiber-reinforced composite adhesive fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater J 2012; 31 (02) 189-196 DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-104.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Zheng Z, He Y, Ruan W. et al. Biomechanical behavior of endocrown restorations with different CAD-CAM materials: a 3D finite element and in vitro analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (06) 890-899 DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.009.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Plotino G, Grande NM, Bedini R, Pameijer CH, Somma F. Flexural properties of endodontic posts and human root dentin. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (09) 1129-1135 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.047.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Zhang H, Zhang ML, Qiu LH, Yu JT, Zhan FL. Comparison of wear resistance and flexural strength of three kinds of bulk-fill composite resins [article in Chinese]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2016; 25 (03) 292-295
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Thongbai-On N, Banomyong D. Flexural strengths and porosities of coated or uncoated, high powder-liquid and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent Sci 2020; 15 (04) 433-436 DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.02.004.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Abdel-Azem HM, Elezz AFA, Safy RK. Effect of Galla Chinensis on remineralization of early dentin lesion. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (04) 651-656 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716778.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Colombo M, Poggio C, Lasagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A. Vickers micro-hardness of new restorative CAD/CAM dental materials: evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (08) 1246 DOI: 10.3390/ma12081246.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Abuelenain D, Neel EAA, Aldharrab A. Mechanical properties of different commercially available dental composites. Austin J Dent 2015; 2 (02) 1019
  Google Scholar
• 46 Babaei B, Shouha P, Birman V, Farrar P, Prentice L, Prusty G. The effect of dental restoration geometry and material properties on biomechanical behaviour of a treated molar tooth: a 3D finite element analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2022; 125: 104892 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104892.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Magne P. Efficient 3D finite element analysis of dental restorative procedures using micro-CT data. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (05) 539-548 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.03.013.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Soares CJ, Santana FR, Castro CG. et al. Finite element analysis and bond strength of a glass post to intraradicular dentin: comparison between microtensile and push-out tests. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (10) 1405-1411 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.004.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K. et al. Critical analysis of the influence of different parameters on the microtensile bond strength of adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10 (01) 7-16
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Van der Sloten J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Oosterwyck H. Influence of joint component mechanical properties and adhesive layer thickness on stress distribution in micro-tensile bond strength specimens. Dent Mater 2009; 25 (01) 4-12 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.04.009.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Ghassemieh E. Evaluation of sources of uncertainties in microtensile bond strength of dental adhesive system for different specimen geometries. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (04) 536-547 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.022.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Placido E, Meira JBC, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM, Ballester RY. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: a finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (09) 1086-1092 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.10.002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ, Wang Z. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater 1995; 11 (02) 126-131 DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80047-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Raposo LHAA, Armstrong SR, Maia RR, Qian F, Geraldeli S, Soares CJ. Effect of specimen gripping device, geometry and fixation method on microtensile bond strength, failure mode and stress distribution: laboratory and finite element analyses. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (05) e50-e62 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.010.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Soares CJ, Soares PV, Santos-Filho PCF, Armstrong SR. Microtensile specimen attachment and shape–finite element analysis. J Dent Res 2008; 87 (01) 89-93 DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700116.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Fennis WMM, Kuijs RH, Barink M, Kreulen CM, Verdonschot N, Creugers NHJ. Can internal stresses explain the fracture resistance of cusp-replacing composite restorations?. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113 (05) 443-448 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00233.x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Armstrong SR, Keller JC, Boyer DB. Mode of failure in the dentin-adhesive resin-resin composite bonded joint as determined by strength-based (muTBS) and fracture-based (CNSB) mechanical testing. Dent Mater 2001; 17 (03) 201-210 DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(00)00070-1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 Campos RE, Santos Filho PCF, de O Júnior OB, Ambrosano GMB, Pereira CA. Comparative evaluation of 3 microbond strength tests using 4 adhesive systems: mechanical, finite element, and failure analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (01) 166-174 DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.024.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 59 Magne P, Belser UC. Rationalization of shape and related stress distribution in posterior teeth: a finite element study using nonlinear contact analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002; 22 (05) 425-433
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 60 Yaman SD, Sahin M, Aydin C. Finite element analysis of strength characteristics of various resin based restorative materials in Class V cavities. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30 (06) 630-641 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01028.x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material