A Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength between Low Translucency and High Translucency Lithium Disilicate Ceramics Using Two Different Resin Cements

Objectives: To compare two different dual-curing resins cement interfaces between low translucency and high translucency lithium disilicate glass-ceramics in vitro. M~aterials and Methods: ISO 11405 was modeled by using a standardized dumb-bell test to compare the tensile bond strength of two different resin cement interfaces ofa low translucency lithium disilicate ceramic to a high translucency lithium disilicate ceramic. The two different dual-cured resin cements were tested: Panavia F 2.0 and Variolink 2. The testing used ten dumbbell specimens for each respective group of resin cement. A total of 20 half-dumbbell shaped ceramic specimens were low translucency shade A2 lithium disilicate and 20 half-dumbbell shaped ceramic specimens were high translucency A2 lithium disilicate. Al bonding protocols were followed as instructed by the manufacturers. The respective resin cements were then applied to the treated surfaces of each half-dumbbell specimen and placed in a standardized index jig that incorporated a 0.1 Omm gap size between ceramics. The dumbbell specimens were placed in a MTS Insight 5kN load cell with customized titanium grips and placed under tension at a crosshead speed of 0.5nnn/min until the resin interface was broken. Data collected was, peak stress, strain at break, modulus of elasticity, and peak load. Results: The mean Peak Stress (MPa) for Panavia F2.0 was 9.77 and Variolink 2 was 12.15 (p = 0.853). The mean Strain at Break(%) for Panavia F2.0 was 4.06 and Variolink 2 was 1.99 (p = 0.315). The mean Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) for Panavia F 2.0 was 0.51 and Variolink 2 was 0.62 (p = 0.436). The mean Peak Load (N) for Panavia was 184.07 and Variolink 2 was 238.42 (p = 0.739). No statistical difference between the two groups was