Fractured zirconia restorations repair bonding durability using two different adhesives

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength and durability of two different adhesives used to repair fractured zirconia restorations before and after water storage and thermocycling stress. Materials and methods Forty zirconia disc samples (10 mm in diameter, 2 mm in thickness) were prepared by CAD/CAM systems (SILADENT) divided in two main groups: (a) group 1: 20 samples were treated with Futurabond M+ adhesive, (b) group 2: 20 samples were treated with Panavia F 2.0 adhesive. All samples were individually and horizontally mounted on a computer-controlled materials testing machine with a load cell of 5 kN and data were recorded using computer software. Intragroup analysis and comparison between two groups will be done using one way analysis of variance test. Results Data were presented as mean, SD, range (minimum–maximum) for numerical values. Student t test and analysis of variance were used to study the effect of cements and thermal aging on mean values. χ2 test was done between failure modes scores. The significance level was set at P value less than or equal to 0.05 and 95% confidence interval. Shear bond strength descriptive statistics of shear bond strength (MPa) showing mean, SD, minimum, maximum, and 95% confidence intervals (low and high) values for both cement groups before and after thermal aging. Conclusion There is significant difference between shear bond strength before and after aging in case of Futurabond M+ but in case of Panavia F 2.0 the difference is nonsignificant. Panavia F 2.0 has comparable shear bond strength to Futurabond M+ in case of water storage and thermocycling aging but in nonaging, Futurabond M+ show higher shear bond strength than Panavia F 2.0. Panavia F 2.0 has provided stable bonding values even with water storage and thermocycling stress.