Citation Information :
Gudivada BB, Trivanani MV, Nakka CS, Vilekar A, Kumari HK, Babu RY. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength between Co–Cr, Titanium, and BioHPP Veneered with Indirect Composite. World J Dent 2023; 14 (11):999-1003.
Aim: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of framework materials such as cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr), titanium (Ti) alloy, and bio-high-performance polymer (BioHPP) veneered with indirect composite material.
Materials and methods: A total sample size of 60 samples with 20 samples in each group; group I: Co–Cr, group II: Ti alloy, and group III: BioHPP are veneered with indirect composite (Bredent). The bond strength was evaluated using the shear bond test, INSTRON universal testing machine. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Kruskal–Wallis analysis revealed significantly higher SBS by BioHPP compared to Ti and Co–Cr. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in the SBS between the Co–Cr and the Ti group and also between the Co–Cr and the BioHPP group. However, the mean SBS between the Ti and the BioHPP group was not statistically significant, though the BioHPP group had higher bond strength.
Conclusion: Bio-high-performance polymer (BioHPP) treated with aluminum oxide and visio-lign bonding agent application has higher bond strength than Co–Cr and Ti and can be used as an appropriate substitute.
Clinical significance: The material that had good bond strength with indirect composite provides excellent esthetics; the indirect composite material has the ability to be repaired easily, and abrasion is similar to that of natural tooth substance.
Petridis H, Hirayama H, Kugel G, et al. Shear bond strength of techniques for bonding esthetic veneers to metal. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(5):608–614. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70062-4
Katyayan M, Katyayan P, Ravishankar K. Shear bond strength of composite veneers and acrylic veneer bonded to ni-cr alloy: a laboratory study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011;11(2):89–97. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-011-0069-6
Yoshida K, Taira Y, Matsumura H, et al. Effect of adhesive metal primers on bonding a prosthetic composite resin to metals. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69(4):357–362. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90180-v
McCracken M. Dental implant materials: commercially pure titanium and titanium alloys. J Prosthodont 1999;8(1):40–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1999.tb00006.x
Lee SY, Vang MS, Yang HS, et al. Shear bond strength of composite resin to titanium according to various surface treatments. J Adv Prosthodont 2009;1(2):68–74. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2009.1.2.68
Tabasum S, Shetty P, Goutam M. Sneak peek into PEEK polymer: an innovation. J Appl Dent Med Sci 2018;4(1).
Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, et al. Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(3):739–744. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1294-2
Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I. Modified PEEK resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis as an interim restoration after implant placement. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(5):637–641. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.024
Han X, Sawada T, Schille C, et al. Comparative analysis of mechanical properties and metal-ceramic bond strength of Co-Cr dental alloy fabricated by different manufacturing processes. Materials (Basel) 2018;11(10): DOI: 10.3390/ma11101801
Basudan HA, Alshareef SM, Alshehri AJ, et al. Differences of direct and indirect resin composite and its effect on esthetic restoration. Int J Commuunity Med Public Health 2021; 8(9). DOI: 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20213575
Azeem RA, Sureshbabu NM. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(1):2–9. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_213_16
Petropoulou A, Pantzari F, Nomikos N, et al. The use of indirect resin composites in clinical practice: a case series. Dentistry 2013;3(3). DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000173
Matsumura H, Yoneyama T, Shimoe S. Veneering technique for a Ti-6Al-7Nb framework used in a resin-bonded fixed partial denture with a highly filled indirect composite. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(6):636–639. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129996
Biris C, Bechir ES, Bechir A, et al. Evaluation of two reinforced polymers used as metal-free substructures in fixed dental restorations. Materiale Plastice 2018;55(1):33–37. DOI: 10.37358/mp.18.1.4958
Lee EY, Jun SG, Wright RF, et al. Comparative study of the shear bond strength of various veneering materials on grade II commercially pure titanium. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7(1):69–75. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.1.69
Karadeniz ZO, Isler S, Alpkilic S, et al. The effects of surface treatments and bonding agents on indirect laboratory composite materials. Int J Curr Res 2018;10(4):67696–67701.
Jin HY, Teng MH, Wang ZJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of BioHPP and titanium as a framework veneered with composite resin for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(4):383–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.003
Tannous F, Steiner M, Shahin R, et al. Retentive forces and fatigue resistance of thermoplastic resin clasps. Dent Mater 2012;28(3):273–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.016
