Evaluation of Adhesion Protocol for Titanium Base Abutments to Different Ceramic and Hybrid Materials

Page Start
Page End
  • Gurwinder Singh Dhesi
  • Sharan Sidhu
  • Nadin Al-Haj Husain
  • Mutlu Özcan


Scientific evidence regarding conditioning of different ceramic and hybrid materials and their bonding on titanium abutments is lacking. Titanium disks (Tritan) (N=450, n=15) were randomly cemented onto five different ceramic and hybrid materials, namely 1. Zenostar T, 2. Lava Ultimate, 3. IPS e.max CAD, 4. Vita Enamic multicolor and 5. G-ceram using three different cements, Panavia 21, TheraCem and Multilink hybrid abutment. Half of all specimens were thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5-55°C), while the other half were kept dry. Macro shear bond testing was conducted using a universal testing machine. Failure types were classified using a digital microscope. Data was statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests. Both the ceramic (P<0.0001) and
cement type(P<0.0001) significantly affected the shear bond strength(MPa), while thermocycling did not (P>0.05). The incidence of cohesive (50.34%) and adhesive failures (49.66%) were not significantly different. As for implant superstructures, when ceramics are bonded to titanium bases, the ceramic and cement type both have an impact on the bond strengths along with the conditioning and bonding protocols for each substrate. An equal affinity of the cements tested to the ceramic, hybrid materials and to titanium can be assumed. Combination of zirconia and TheraCem can be recommended for clinical use.

Fracture Resistance
Titanium Base Abutments