SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF THE BOND INTERFACE BETWEEN COMPOSITE AND PORCELAIN AFTER DIFFERENT SURFACE CONDITIONING TREATMENTS
Main Article Content
Keywords
composite, porcelain, surface conditioning, scanning electron microscope, bond interface
Abstract
Background: Ceramic materials are widely used in fixed prosthodontics and esthetic restorations due to their durability, biocompatibility, and esthetic appeal. However, they are prone to chipping or fracture, often requiring repair. Intraoral composite resin repair is a conservative and cost-effective approach, but its success depends on strong adhesion achieved through micromechanical interlocking and chemical bonding, which can be enhanced by surface conditioning methods such as acid etching and silane application. This study evaluated the effects of different surface conditioning techniques on the bond interface between composite resin and porcelain using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methods: This cross-sectional in vitro study was conducted at BMU and BUET, Dhaka, from March 2024 to February 2025. Forty-eight porcelain discs (15 mm × 3 mm × 3 mm) were divided into three groups (n = 16): Group 1—no conditioning, Group 2—silane coupling agent, and Group 3—phosphoric acid etching plus silane. Composite resin was bonded to conditioned surfaces, stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, sectioned, polished, sputter-coated, and examined under SEM at ×1500 magnification. Bond line continuity, surface roughness, micromechanical interlocking, resin penetration, and overall bond quality were qualitatively analyzed. Results: SEM revealed clear differences among groups. Unconditioned samples showed a thin, irregular bond line with minimal micromechanical interlocking. Silane-treated samples exhibited improved chemical bonding and a more continuous interface, but limited mechanical retention. The combination of phosphoric acid and silane produced a roughened porcelain surface with intimate composite adaptation, well-defined micro-retentive features, and enhanced micromechanical and chemical bonding, yielding the highest bond quality. Conclusion: Phosphoric acid etching followed by silane application provides the strongest and most durable bond between porcelain and composite resin, making it the preferred method for intraoral repairs.
References
2. Sheets CG, Taniguchi T. Advantages and limitations in the use of porcelain veneer restorations. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1990 Oct 1;64(4):406-11.
3. Kumchai H, Juntavee P, Sun AF, Nathanson D. Comparing the repair of veneered zirconia crowns with ceramic or composite resin: an in vitro study. Dentistry journal. 2020 Apr 27;8(2):37.
4. Özcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2002 May 1;15(3).
5. Kelsey 3rd WP, Latta MA, Stanislav CM, Shaddy RS. Comparison of composite resin-to-porcelain bond strength with three adhesives. General dentistry. 2000 Jul 1;48(4):418-21.
6. Pameijer CH, Louw NP, Fischer D. Repairing fractured porcelain: how surface preparation affects shear force resistance. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1996 Feb 1;127(2):203-9.
7. Kumchai H, Juntavee P, Sun AF, Nathanson D. Comparing the repair of veneered zirconia crowns with ceramic or composite resin: an in vitro study. Dentistry journal. 2020 Apr 27;8(2):37.
8. Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The effect of five silane coupling agents on the bond strength of a luting cement to a silica-coated titanium. Dental Materials. 2007 Sep 1;23(9):1173-80.
9. Blatz MB, Chiche G, Holst S, Sadan A. Influence of surface treatment and simulated aging on bond strengths of luting agents to zirconia. Quintessence international. 2007 Oct 1;38(9)
10. Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dental materials. 2012 May 1;28(5):467-77.
11. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers bonded to tooth structure: an ultra-morphological FE-SEM examination of the adhesive interface. Dental Materials. 1999 Mar 1;15(2):105-19.
12. Shen C, Rawls HR, Esquivel-Upshaw J. Phillip’s Science of Dental Materials. 13th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2025. p. 202.
13. Choudhary OP, Priyanka. Scanning Electron Microscope: Advantages and Disadvantages in Imaging Components. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(5):1877-1882. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.605.207
14. Barghi N. To silanate or not to silanate: making a clinical decision. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995). 2000 Aug 1;21(8):659-2.
15. Amaral R, Özcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: the effect of surface conditioning. Dental Materials. 2006 Mar 1;22(3):283-90.
