Comparison of bond strengths of three denture base resins to treated nickel-chromium-beryllium alloy

Darunee P. NaBadalung, DDS,a John M. Powers, PhD,b and Mark E. Connelly, DDSc University of Washington, School of Dentistry, Seattle, Wash.; and University of TexasHouston Dental Branch, Houston, Texas Purpose. In-vitro bond strengths of 3 denture base resins (Trutone, Lucitone 199, and Triad) to a nickelchromium-beryllium removable partial denture alloy (Ticonium) were tested with 3 surface pretreatments: sandblast, acid etch, and Rocatec (silica blasting), with or without primers (Dentsply, CR inlay cement, and Super Bond). Material and methods. Lucitone 199 denture base resin bonded to the nonprimed sandblasted alloy specimen served as the control group. Alloy specimens were prepared, surface treated, and primed or not primed with primer. The treated specimens were then packed and processed with the denture base resin. Bonded specimens were stored in the distilled water at 37C for 24 hours, and then debonded in tension. The force at which the bond failed was noted, and bond strength was calculated in megapascals (MPa). Five replications for each condition (180 specimens total) were tested. Results. Significant differences in bond strength were observed with primer, the most important factor, followed by pretreatment and denture base resin. Without primer for all 3 denture base resins, the Met-Etch and Rocatec treated groups showed significantly higher bond strengths than the sandblasted groups. For Trutone denture base resin, nonprimed treated groups produced significantly higher bond strength than those for the other 2 denture base resins. The control group had zero bond strength. For Dentsply primer, the Rocatec treated group bonded to Lucitone 199 resin produced the highest bond strength value (14.8 1.8 MPa). For CR inlay cement, the Met-Etch and Rocatec treated groups for Lucitone denture base resin demonstrated the highest bond strength (19.3 4.8 MPa, and 19.3 1.8 MPa, respectively). For Super Bond primer, the Met-Etch treated group for Trutone resin demonstrated the highest bond strength (19.8 6.2 MPa). Conclusions. Without primer, the control had the lowest bond strength (0 MPa), and the Trutone groups showed the highest bond strength (11.7 4.1 MPa). Met-Etch and Rocatec treated groups produced higher bond strengths than the sand blasted groups. The primed specimens demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths than nonprimed specimens, except for Trutone resin, for which primed specimens produced lower bond strengths than the nonprimed specimens. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:354-61.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Bond strengths between denture base resins and nickel-chromium-beryllium alloy can be enhanced by using a combination of primer (Dentsply primer, Super Bond cement, or CR inlay cement) and treating metal surface with sandblast, chemical etch (MetEtch), or the Rocatec system. Future studies are needed to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of the denture base resin-treated alloy interface.

he most commonly used cast metal alloys for removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks are nickel-chromium-beryllium (Ni-Cr-Be) and cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr). An acrylic denture base resin joins the artificial teeth and metal framework together to form the supporting base. Conventionally, denture base
This research was supported in part by Dentsply International, Inc., and Gresco Products, Inc. aAssistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington. bProfessor, Department of Basic Sciences, University of TexasHouston Dental Branch. cAssociate Professor, Department of General Dentistry, University of Texas-Houston Dental Branch. 354 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

acrylic resin is attached to the metal framework by mechanical retention in many forms, including loops, nail heads, mesh, triangular projections, struts, and undercut finish lines. Livaditis1 described a chemical etching method to improve retention between acrylic resin and alloy. Zurasky and Duke2 reported that electrochemically etched alloy and acrylic resin demonstrated 3.5 times stronger bonding than beads. They recognized that adhesion was entirely mechanical. Krueger et al.3 found that the chemical etching demonstrated the higher bond strength than electrolytic etching. Some articles described chemical etching for the metal alloy.4,5 The major problem with mechanical bonds is microleakage of the resin-metal interface leadVOLUME 80 NUMBER 3

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table I. Code, products, batch numbers, manufacturers, denture resins, adhesive primers, and pretreatment agents
Code Product Batch number Manufacturer

Denture base resins C20

L T Adhesive primers D SB CR Surface pretreatment S ME R

*Trutone (Compak 20) Lucitone 199 #Triad Dentsply Liquid Super Bond primer CR Inlay cement Sandblast (50 m Al2O3) Met-Etch Rocatec system

Powder 49631002 Liquid 94963 Powder 688106 Liquid 684309 95791 LF 1-73A Powder 91201; Liquid 007; Catalyst 005012 Powder ID-1082 Liquid 007 None 01132 Rocatec-pre 0004 Rocatec-plus 0036 Rocatec-sil 002 None

Dentsply Int. Inc., York, Pa. Dentsply Int. Inc. Dentsply Int. Inc. Dentsply Int. Inc. Sun Medical Co., Kyoto, Japan J. Morita Inc., Tustin, Calif. Sinclair Abrasive and Equipment Co., Chicago, Ill. Gresco Product, Inc., Stafford, Texas ESPE Seefeld, Germany Norristown, Pa. Ticonium Co., Albany, N.Y.

Ni-Cr-Be alloy

Ticonium Premium 100

*Powder-liquid ratio was 100 g/42.8 g. Polymerization conditions were 100C for 20 minutes in water bath. Powder-liquid ratio was 100 g/47.6 g. Polymerization conditions were 74C for 9 hours in water bath. #Polymerization conditions were 10 minutes in Triad II (Dentsply Int. Inc.).

ing to ingress of oral fluids, retention of food particles and microorganisms, and subsequent discoloration, foul odor, and deterioration of acrylic resin portion of the prostheses.6 In addition, when the interarch distance is limited, mechanical retention compromises esthetics and placement of artificial teeth. Because of the disadvantages of the mechanical resin-metal bonding, numerous methods and techniques to improve the quality of the metal-resin interface have been explored. Because Rochette7 used a silane coupling agent to improve bonding between resin and metal alloy, researchers8,9 have reported that 4-META (4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride) adhesive resin adhered strongly to oxidized Ni-Cr alloy and to acrylic resin. Tanaka et al.9,10 obtained a favorable 4-META bond strength when Ni-Cr alloys were treated in an oxidizing solution with 1% potassium permanganate (K2MnO4), and etched with 36% HCl, and finally oxidized with 61% HNO3. Other reports11-17 observed that alloy treated with adhesive resins containing 4-META bonded strongly to the acrylic resin. At the same time, another organic phosphonate adhesive resin was reported as a successful material for bonding acrylic resin to sandblasted metal alloys.13,15 Moreover, Guggenberger18 used the Rocatec system to improve resin-alloy bond strength. The Rocatec system consists of cleaning the metal surface with sandblasting (110 m Al2O3 under 0.25 MPa pressure), coating the blasted surface with high energy silicon dioxide granules under pressure, and coating with a silane coupling solution to induce a chemical bond. Several reports19,20
SEPTEMBER 1998

showed that the Rocatec system enhanced the bond strength of the acrylic resin to the alloy. There are no reports on the comparison of the bond strengths among Trutone, Lucitone, and Triad denture base resins to the treated RPD alloy with or without primers. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare tensile bond strength of 3 traditional denture base resins to Ni-Cr-Be alloy prepared with 3 surface pretreatments and 3 adhesive primers to a control group. Increased bonding between the denture base resin and the RPD alloy should allow advantageous prosthetic designs, and eliminate and reduce leakage at the finish line.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The codes, products, batch numbers, and manufacturers of denture base resins, adhesive primers, and pretreatments are listed in Table I. Truncated cones (8 mm diameter at the bond interface 10 mm in diameter 10 mm height) of hard inlay wax (Lincoln Dent. Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J.) were prepared, invested, and cast in Ni-Cr-Be alloy (Ticonium Premium 100, Ticonium Co., CMP Industries Inc. Albany, N.Y.) with an induction casting machine (Ticomatic, CMP Industries Inc.). Alloy specimens were devested and finished with sandblasting at 0.25 MPa with 50 m Al2O3 (aluminum oxide, Sinclair Abrasive and Equipment Co., Chicago, Ill.) for 10 seconds, cleaned ultrasonically for 1 minute in distilled water, air dried, and then examined thoroughly for any bonding
355

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

Fig 1. Alloy specimens with truncated cones of wax.

Fig. 3. Bonded specimens (denture base resin-treated alloy).

Fig. 2. Chart of specimens per preparation.

surface defects. Alloy specimens without defects were selected for this study. Alloy specimens, with matching truncated cones of inlay wax (Fig. 1) attached on the bonding surface, were invested in dental stone (5 specimens at a time) within a traditional denture flask (Hanau Engineering Co. Inc., Buffalo, N.Y.). After the stone was set and the wax was boiled out, specimens and stone molds were rinsed of the wax residue, cleaned thoroughly with detergent, and washed with boiling water. The bonding sites (50.8 mm2 in area) of alloy specimens were prepared with surface pretreatments (sandblast, S; acid etch, ME; Rocatec, R). Sandblasting was performed with 50 m Al2O3 particles at 0.25 MPa for 1 minute and washed thoroughly with distilled water and then air dried. Chemical etching was performed with an acid gel mixture of HNO3, HCl, and HF acids (Met-Etch,
356

Gresco Products Inc. Stafford, Texas) for 20 minutes, then rinsed with distilled water, and air dried for 30 minutes, according to the manufacturers instructions. The Rocatec treatment (Rocatec system, ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) was conducted according to the manufacturers instructions, which involved sandblasting with 110 m Al2O3 under pressure 0.25 MPa (Rocatec-Pre) for 26 seconds and silica coating (Rocatec Post) for 26 seconds. Immediately after the coating, a silanating agent (Rocatec-Sil) was applied with a brush-on technique and allowed to dry for 5 minutes. Primer was applied and denture base resin was packed within 15 minutes according to the manufacturers instructions. Treated specimens were primed with an adhesive primer (Dentsply, D; CR inlay cement, CR; and Super Bond C&B, SB) or not primed. D primer contains an acrylic copolymer, thixotropic agent, pigments, silane, and solvents (methyl ethyl ketone and 1,1,1, trichloroethane). It was applied with brush-on technique in 2 separate layers with each layer allowed to dry. CR primer is a filled, dual-cured, organic phosphorylated BIS-GMA that was mixed and applied with brush-on technique in 1 layer and allowed to dry according to the manufacturers instructions. SB primer is a 4-META acrylic resin cement that was mixed, applied with brush-on technique in 1 layer and allowed to polymerize for 10 minutes. Before application of the SB primer, the alloy surfaces, which had been pretreated with sandblast and Met-etch, were
VOLUME 80 NUMBER 3

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table II. Tensile bond strength (MPa) of denture base resins to pretreated Ni-Cr-Be partial denture alloy
Pretreatment Denture resin Sandblast, S Met-Etch, ME Rocatec, R

Table III. Analysis of variance table for bond strengths affected by primer, resin, and pretreatment
Source df Sum of square Mean square F value P values

No-primer Trutone, C20 Lucitone 199, L Triad, T Dentsply, D Trutone Lucitone Triad Super Bond, SB Trutone Lucitone 199 Triad CR Inlay cement Trutone Lucitone 199 Triad

8.0 (1.8)* 00 1.9 (0.9) 1.0 (0.1)k 1.9 (0.7)k 8.9 (1.8)c 4.7 (1.6) 8.8 (1.6)f 11.8 (2.8) 6.8 (0.4) 16.8 (4.4) 18.2 (4.1)h

11.7 (4.1)a 6.0 (2.6)b,i 7.0 (1.4)c,i 7.7 (2.2)d,l 7.7 (2.4)l,o 9.2 (1.8)e 19.8 (6.2) 8.6 (2.1)f,o 18.2 (3.6)p 13.4 (4.1) 19.3 (4.8)g,n 18.9 (5.2)h,n,p

11.4 (2.7)a,q 7.1 (1.6)b,j 7.0 (2.1)c,j 7.7 (1.2)d 14.8 (1.8)r 10.8 (1.4) 6.2 (0.8) 14.8 (1.3)m,r 14.7 (1.3)m,s 10.9 (3.9)q 19.3 (1.8)g 14.8 (4.9)s

Primer (P) 3 Resin (R) 2 Pretreatment (T) 2 P*R 6 P*T 6 R*T 4 P*R*T 12 Residual 144

2161 219 845 1002 260 401 435 1184

720 110 423 167 43.4 100 36.3 8.22

87.6 13.4 51.4 20.3 5.27 12.2 4.42

.0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 >.05

*Mean of 5 replications (MPa) with standard deviation in parentheses. Control. Tukey intervals (MPa) for comparisons among means at the 0.05 significance level (P<.05) were 1.6 MPa among 3 adhesives and nonprimed control, 1.2 MPa among 3 pretreatments, and 1.2 MPa among 3 denture base resins. Means with same superscripts are statistically equal at 0.05 significance level.

cleaned and oxidized with freshly prepared 1% K2MnO4 and 3% H2SO4 solutions for 10 seconds. Pretreated and primed or nonprimed specimens and stone molds in the flask were packed with denture base resins (Trutone, C20; Lucitone 199, L; Triad, T) and processed according to the manufacturers instructions. One resin was packed and processed with each condition of specimens at a time. The number of specimens per preparation is illustrated in Figure 2. Lucitone 199 (L) resin with nonprimed sandblasted specimens served as the control group. C20 resin, a rapid heatpolymerized resin, was polymerized at 100C for 20 minutes in water. L resin, a traditional heat-polymerized acrylic resin, was polymerized at 74C for 9 hours in water. C20 and L resins were processed by using the conventional flasking technique. Triad resin, a filled urethane dimethacrylate resin, was polymerized in a visible light-curing unit (Triad II, Dentsply International, York, Pa.). Mixed Triad resin was packed to pretreated alloy specimens in a polytetrafluoroethylene mold without gypsum to allow visible light (Triad II) activation for 10 minutes. Bonded specimens were recovered after polymerization and then examined thoroughly. Any flash or excess resin material was removed with an inverted cone bur (Brasseler Inc., Savanna, Ga.). Bonded specimens (Fig. 3) were stored in distilled water at 37C for 24 hours. Afterward, they were mounted in a loading jig and debonded in tension with
SEPTEMBER 1998

a testing machine (Model 8501, Instron Corp., Canton, Mass.) at a crosshead speed of 0.05 cm/min. The force at which the bond failed was recorded, and the bond strength was calculated in megapascals (MPa). Treated alloy specimens were examined at 500 magnification with a scanning electron microscope (JSM-820, JEOL, Peabody, Mass.) operating at 30 KV by a coinvestigator. In addition, the sites of the bond failure were examined under low-power magnification (20) and with a measuring grid, the area (in %) was calculated. Five specimens were evaluated for each experimental condition for a total of 180 specimens. Means and standard deviations of bond strength were calculated and recorded. Data were analyzed with a 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a factorial design,21 and means were compared with Tukey intervals22 calculated at the 0.05 significance level. Differences between means that were larger than the calculated Tukey intervals were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS
Means and standard deviation (n = 5) of the bond strength data are presented in Table II, and ANOVA results are listed in Table III. Tukey intervals for comparisons among means at 0.05 significance level were 1.6 MPa among 3 adhesive primers and control, 1.2 MPa among 3 pretreatments, and 1.2 MPa among 3 denture base resins. Differences between 2 means greater than the appropriate Tukey intervals were considered statistically significant. Significant differences in bond strengths were observed among primers, pretreatments, and denture base resins with significant interactions. Two-way interactions were all significant (P=.0001); however, the 3-way interaction was not significant.

Nonprimed specimens
The control group exhibited zero bond strength. The Met-Etch (ME) and Rocatec (R) treated groups showed the significantly higher bond strengths for each
357

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

Fig. 4. A, SEM photograph of sandblasted Ni-Cr-Be alloy showed microretention area. (Original magnification 500.) B, SEM photograph of Met-Etched Ni-Cr-Be alloy showed microretention areas. (Original magnification 500.) C, SEM photograph of Rocatec treated Ni-Cr-Be alloy showed silica with silane on alloy surface. (Original magnification 500.)

resin than the sandblasted groups (P<.05). The values of the R and the ME groups were not significantly different. The Trutone groups showed the significantly higher bond strengths than the other 2 resin groups.

Primed specimens
For Dentsply (D) primer, for 3 resins, the ME and R treated groups demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths than the sandblasted (S) group, except for Triad resin for which the bond strengths of the S and ME treated groups were not significantly different. For the Lucitone and Triad resins, the R group produced significantly higher bond strengths (14.8 1.8 and 10.8 1.8 MPa) than the ME groups (7.7 2.4 and 9.2 1.8 MPa), but for the Trutone resin, both ME and R treated groups were not statistically different (7.7 2.2 and 7.7 1.2 MPa). However, for 3 resins, the D primer groups produced higher bond strengths
358

than the nonprimed groups, except for Trutone resin for which the primed groups demonstrated the significantly lower bond strengths than the nonprimed groups. The highest bond strength of the D primer groups (14.8 1.8 MPa) was the bond strength of the Lucitone 199 to the R treated group. This value was significantly higher than the bond strengths of the other groups with D primer. With the SB primer for these 3 resins, the ME and the R treated groups produced the significantly higher bond strength than the S groups, except for Lucitone resin with ME and S groups, for which the values were not significantly different (8.6 2.1 and 8.8 1.6 MPa). Super Bond primer groups demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths than the nonprimed groups, except for Trutone resin with the S and R treatments. In these situations, the SB groups
VOLUME 80 NUMBER 3

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

demonstrated significantly lower bond strengths than nonprimed groups. In addition, the SB groups produced significantly higher bond strengths than D primer groups, except for Trutone resin to R with the SB or D groups (6.2 0.8 and 7.7 1.2 MPa) and for Lucitone resin to ME with the SB or D groups (8.6 2.1 and 7.7 2.4 MPa) for which the bond strengths were not significantly different. The highest bond strength of the SB primer groups (19.8 6.2 MPa) was the bond strength of the ME group with SB primer to Trutone resin, and this value was significantly higher than the bond strengths of the other groups with the SB primer. With the CR inlay primer (CR), for 3 resins, the ME and R groups revealed significantly higher bond strength than the S groups, except for Triad resin for which the S group produced significantly higher bond strength (18.2 4.1 MPa) than the R treated group (14.8 4.9 MPa). The CR primer groups produced significantly higher bond strengths than nonprimed groups, except for the Trutone groups for which the bond strengths of the CR primer and nonprimed groups were not significantly different. CR primer groups produced significantly higher bond strengths than the SB primer groups, except for Trutone resin with the ME groups for which the CR group produced significantly lower bond strength (13.4 4.1 MPa) than the SB group (19.8 6.2 MPa), and for the Triad resin with the ME and the R groups, for which CR and SB groups were not significantly different (18.9 5.2 and 18.2 3.6 MPa). In addition, the CR primer groups produced significantly higher bond strengths than the D primer groups, especially for the Lucitone and Triad resins. The highest bond strengths of the CR primer groups (19.3 4.8 and 19.3 1.8 MPa) were the bond strengths of the ME and the R treated specimens to Lucitone resin. These values were significantly higher than bond strengths of the other groups with the CR cement, except these values and the bond strength of the Triad resin to the ME with CR group were not significantly different (18.9 5.2 MPa). SEM studies of the alloy pretreatments demonstrated the S specimen (Fig. 4,A), ME specimen (Fig. 4,B), and R specimen (Fig. 4,C). The ME surface showed more irregularly shaped microretention areas than the S surface. The R treated surface showed a silica-silane coated surface.

Table IV. Location of bond failures (%) of denture base resin to pretreated Ni-Cr-Be partial denture alloy
Pretreatment Denture resin Sandblast, S Met-Etch, ME Rocatec, R

No primer Trutone, C20 Lucitone 199, L Triad, T Dentsply, D Trutone, C20 Lucitone 199, L Triad, T Super Bond, C&B Trutone, C20 Lucitone 199, L Triad, T CR Inlay cement Trutone, C20 Lucitone 199, L Triad, T

85AR/15R* AR AR P AP P 30PR/70R 40PR/60R 20PR/80R 80PR/20R PR R

85AR/15R AR 80AR/20R 70AR/30R P P R 40PR/60R 20PR/80R 50PR/50R 20PR/80R R

85AR/15R AR 80AR/20R P P 90AR/10R 60PR/40R 10PR/90R 10PR/90R 75PR/25R 60PR/40R R

R is cohesive failure within the denture base resin. AP is adhesive failure between alloy and primer. P is cohesive failure within the primer. PR is adhesive failure between the primer and denture resin. is the control group.

Failure sites
Data for bond failures are summarized in Table IV. Without primer, for Lucitone resin, 100% of the bond failures occurred adhesively between the denture base resin and treated alloy. For Trutone and Triad resins, 80% to 100% of the bond failures occurred adhesively between denture base resins and treated alloy and 0% to
SEPTEMBER 1998

20% of bond failures occurred cohesively within the resins. With Dentsply primer (D), for Lucitone resin, 0% to 100% of the bond failures occurred cohesively within the primer and 0% to 100% of the bond failures occurred adhesively between the primer and alloy. For Trutone and Triad resins, 0% to 100% of the bond failures occurred cohesively within the primer, 0% to 90% of the bond failures occurred adhesively between resins and alloy, and 0% to 30% of the bond failures occurred cohesively within the resins. With SB primer, for Lucitone resin, bonds failed adhesively (10% to 40%) between the primer and resin, and cohesively (60% to 90%) within the resin. For Trutone and Triad resins, bonds failed adhesively (0% to 60%) between the primer and resins, and cohesively (40% to 100%) within the resins. With CR cement, for Lucitone resin, bond failures occurred adhesively (20% to 100%) between the primer and resin, and cohesively (0% to 80%) within the resin. For Trutone resin, bond failures occurred adhesively (50% to 80%) between the primer and resins, and cohesively (20% to 50%) within the resin. For Triad resin, bond failures occurred cohesively (100%) within the resin.

DISCUSSION Without primer

This study indicated that for the 3 denture base resins tested, the ME and R groups produced bond
359

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

strengths higher than the S groups. This may be because the ME treated groups produced more irregular surface areas, and a more uniform oxide layer on the treated alloy, thereby enhancing the bond strengths of the denture base resins to the treated alloys more than the S group. For the Rocatec system, both the chemical agent from the silane agent and increased micromechanical retention areas from silica blasting were used to enhance the bond strength of the denture base resins to the treated alloy. ME and R treated groups did not produce significantly different bond strengths. The cost may be a factor in system selection because the Rocatec system is much more expensive. For Lucitone resin, ME and R groups demonstrated bond strengths of 6.0 to 7.1 MPa, which were substantially higher than 4.77 MPa for bead retention.2 This suggests that MetEtch and Rocatec treatments are better than the bead retention to enhance the bond strength between the treated alloy and Lucitone denture base resin. However, without primer, the Trutone and Triad resins adhered to the treated alloy better than the Lucitone resin.

With primers
Dentsply primer, a resin base with silane agent, worked well with the Lucitone and Triad resins to the treated groups, especially with Lucitone resin to the Rocatec treated alloy, where it produced a high bond strength (14.8 1.8 MPa). In contrast, it did not enhance the bond strengths of the Trutone resin to the treated groups when compared with the nonprimed groups. Interestingly, bond failure occurred cohesively within the primer. Perhaps the tensile strength of the primer was low to start with or the temperature (100C for 20 minutes) for polymerization of the Trutone resin degraded the primer. Super Bond primer, an acrylic 4-META base primer, worked well with the Met-Etch treated alloy to Triad and Trutone resins, and produced the higher bond strengths (18.2 to 19.8 MPa) and the bond failures occurred cohesively within the resins (80% for the Triad and 100% for the Trutone). For Trutone resin group, most bond strengths of the primed groups were significantly lower than the bond strengths of the nonprimed groups, except the ME treated groups with the Super Bond, which had significantly higher bond strengths than the nonprimed groups. The high temperature (100C, 20 minutes) for polymerization of Trutone resin may have enhanced the properties of Met-Etch with the Super Bond, or the high temperature degraded the properties of the primers. However, further research is necessary in these areas. In addition, the Super Bond procedure was complicated due to the necessity of using K2MnO4 and H2SO4 solutions to induce the oxide on the metal surface as suggested by Tanaka et al.10
360

Super Bond primer worked well with the Rocatec treated alloy to Lucitone and Triad resins and produced the high bond strengths (14.7 to 14.8 MPa) and the bond failures mostly occurred cohesively (90%) within the resins. However, the Rocatec system is more expensive and complicated than the Met-Etch. The CR inlay cement, a composite phosphonate BIS-GMA base primer with an activated ester to enhance chemical adhesion to the treated alloy and to the denture base resin, seemed to bond effectively in nearly all conditions and to yield significantly higher bond strengths. In addition, the manufacturer states that cement bonds strongly to resin. Another factor may be the property of the CR inlay cement to completely wet the treated alloy surface. For the Lucitone and Triad resins, the CR inlay cement yielded high bond strengths from 14.8 4.9 to 19.3 4.8 MPa, and the bond failures occurred mostly cohesively within the resins (100% for Triad and 0% to 80% for Lucitone) and adhesively between the resins and the CR inlay primer (0% for Triad and 20% to 100% for Lucitone). For Trutone groups, the CR inlay cement yielded the bond strengths lower than the nonprimed groups, perhaps the high temperature (100C for 20 minutes) for polymerization of the resin degraded the adhesion properties of the CR inlay cement. Further research is necessary in this area. When compared with the results of the report by Zurasky and Duke,2 the results from this study showed that 31 conditions of the specimens had bond strengths that were higher than 4.77 MPa, which was the bond strength of Lucitone resin to Ni-Cr-Be alloy when bead retention was used, and there were 7 conditions that had the bond strength higher than 16.7 MPa, which was the bond strength of the Lucitone resin to the electrochemically treated alloy. In addition, a previous report stated that a strong adhesion mediated by a bonding agent may be gap free.23 The results of this study indicated the selected combinations to enhance the bond strength between the alloy surface and denture base resin and could be worthy for clinical evaluation. Furthermore, the required thickness of the primer is much less than the size of the bead or stud retention. Therefore the bonding agents would preserve the necessary space for the artificial teeth or denture base resin and enhance the quality of the prosthesis. However, further research of microleakage between the bonding interface of the specimens is necessary. SEM microphotographs of the alloy surfaces pretreatment demonstrated the differences of microretention areas of the treated specimens. The Met-Etch treated alloy had more microretention areas than sandblasted alloy. The Rocatec treated alloy showed a silicasilane coated surface. Both Met-Etch and Rocatec treated specimens demonstrated more microretention areas than the sandblasted alloy.
VOLUME 80 NUMBER 3

NABADALUNG, POWERS, AND CONNELLY

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were drawn. 1. Without primer, Lucitone 199 resin showed zero bond strength with the sandblasted surface pretreatment. Trutone resin showed significantly higher bond strength than Lucitone or Triad resin. Met-Etch and the Rocatec treated groups showed the significantly higher bond strength than the sandblasted groups. 2. With primer, the primed groups showed significantly higher bond strengths than nonprimed values, except for the Trutone groups in which the primed groups produced lower bond strengths than the nonprimed groups. 3. For Lucitone resin, the Met-Etch and Rocatec treated groups with CR inlay cement produced the highest bond strengths (19.3 4.8 and 19.3 1.8 MPa). 4. For Triad resin, the Met-Etch treated groups with CR inlay cement and Super Bond primer, and the sandblasted group with CR inlay cement, demonstrated higher bond strengths that were not significantly different from each other (18.9 5.2 and 18.2 4.1 MPa). For Trutone resin, the Met-Etch treated group with Super Bond primer demonstrated the highest bond strength (19.8 6.2 MPa). 5. Nearly all bond failures of the primed groups occurred cohesively within the primers or denture base resins and adhesively between the primers and the reins; whereas, most of the nonprimed groups occurred adhesively between the metal surface and the denture base resins.
The commercial products were provided by Dentsply Int., Inc., ESPE Co., Gresco Products, Inc., Sun Medical Co., Ltd., and Ticonium Co./CMP Industries, Inc. We thank David Ladd and U. Parikh for technical assistance.

REFERENCES
1. Livaditis GJ. A chemical etching system for creating micromechanical retention in resin-bonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:181-8. 2. Zurasky JE, Duke ES. Improved adhesion of denture acrylic resins to base metal alloys. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:520-4. 3. Krueger GE, Diaz-Arnold AM, Aquilino SA, Scandrett FR. A comparison of electrolytic and chemical etching systems on the resin-to metal tensile bond strength. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:610-7. 4. Doukoudakis A, Cohen B, Tsoutsou A. A new chemical method for etching metal frameworks of the acid-etched prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:421-3.

5. Sedberry D, Burgess J, Schwartz R. Tensile bond strengths of three chemical and one electrolytic etching systems for a base metal alloy. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:606-10. 6. McGivney GP, Castleberry DJ. McCrackens removable partial prosthodontics. 8th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1989. p. 142. 7. Rochette AL. Attachment of a splint to enamel of lower anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30:418-32. 8. Yasuda N. The application of adhesive resins containing 4-METE in metal based prostheses. Part I: a logical background and the basic studies on 4META. Rev Jpn Dent 1980;450:33-44. 9. Tanaka T, Nagata K, Takeyama M, Asuta M, Nagabayashi N, Masahara E. 4-META opaque resina new resin strongly adhesive to nickel-chromium alloy. J Dent Res 1981;60:1697-706. 10. Tanaka T, Fujiyama E, Shimizu H, Takaki A, Atsuta M. Surface treatment of nonprecious alloys for adhesion-fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:456-62. 11. Jacobson TE, Chang JC, Keri PP, Watanabe LG. Bond strength of 4-META acrylic resin denture base to cobalt chromium alloy. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:570-6. 12. Barzilay I, Myers ML, Cooper LB, Graser GN. Mechanical and chemical retention of laboratory cured composite to metal surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:131-7. 13. Tenjoma LT, Nicholls JI, Townsend JT, Harper RJ. Chemical retention of composite resin to metal. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:78-88. 14. NaBadalung DP, Powers JM, Connelly ME. Bond strength of traditional and adhesive denture resins to Ticonium. Trans Acad Dent Mater 1991; 4:116-7. 15. Imbery TA, Burgess JO, Naylor WP. Tensile strength of three resin cements following two alloy surface treatments. Int J Prosthodont 1992;1:59-67. 16. Diaz-Arnold AM, Mertz JM, Aquilino SA, Ryther JS, Keller JC. A comparison of the tensile bond strength of four prosthodontic adhesives. J Prosthodont 1993;2:215-9. 17. Salonga JP, Matsumura H, Yasuda K, Yamabe Y. Bond strength of adhesive resin to three nickel-chromium alloy with varying chromium content. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:582-4. 18. Guggenberger R. Rocatec system-adhesion by tribochemical coating. [in German] Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1989;44:874-6. 19. Hansson O, Moberg LE. Evaluation of three silicoating methods for resinbonded prostheses. Scand J Dent Res 1993;101:243-51. 20. May KB, Fox J, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Silane to enhance the bond between polymethyl methacrylate and titanium. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73: 428-31. 21. Dalby J. BMD 8Vanalysis of variance. Ann Arbor (MI): Statistical Research Laboratory, University of Michigan; 1968. p. 1-8. 22. Guenther WC. Analysis of variance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1964. p. 1-199. 23. Fortin D, Swift EJ Jr, Denehy GE, Reinhardt JW. Bond strength and microleakage of current dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 1994;10:253-8.

Reprint requests to: DR. DARUNEE NABADALUNG DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHODONTICS BOX 357452 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WA 98195
Copyright 1998 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 0022-3913/98/$5.00 + 0. 10/1/91327

SEPTEMBER 1998

361