ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Mater.
Sec. Ceramics and Glass
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmats.2025.1654956
Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Silica-Based Ceramic: A Comparative Study of Different Surface Treatments
Provisionally accepted
Abdualaziz Alqahtani1Abdualaziz Alhelal1Mohammed D Almutairi2Abdulaziz H Alhassoon2Khalid S Alshahrani2Turki S Alshahrani2
Syed Rashid Habib1*- 1Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- 2Dental Internship Training Program, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The bond strength between resin composite and ceramics is critical for the success of fractured ceramics repaired with resin composites. The aim of the present study was to investigate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) between resin composites and lithium disilicate (LD) ceramics using three different surface treatments of the LD.Methodology: 120 samples of lithium disilicate were fabricated, out of which 60 were layered with fluoroapatite. Three surface treatment protocols were used: Sandblasting, phosphoric acid and clearfil ceramic prime plus (PA+CFCP); Sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid and clearfil ceramic prime plus (HA+CFCP); Hydrofluoric acid with Monobond N. All specimens were repaired with resin composite, aged using 5000 cycles of thermocycling (5°C to 55°C), followed by SBS testing.Specimens were examined under scanning electron and digital microscopes for type of failure.Two-way, one-way ANOVA and t-tests were used for statistical analysis (P<0.05).Results: A two-way ANOVA revealed that both ceramic type and the interaction with surface treatment significantly influenced SBS (p < 0.05). While no significant differences in SBS were found among protocols for lithium disilicate, porcelain showed significantly higher SBS when treated with hydrofluoric acid followed by Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus (HF + CFCP) compared to hydrofluoric acid with Monobond N (HF + MB). Failure mode analysis showed consistent patterns in lithium disilicate across treatments, while porcelain exhibited more mixed failuresindicative of stronger bonds-in the HF + CFCP group. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring surface treatments to the specific ceramic to achieve optimal bond strength and durability.Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus demonstrated shear bond strength (SBS) comparable to hydrofluoric acid-based protocols when used with lithium disilicate, even in the absence of hydrofluoric acid. Moreover, in porcelain repair, it achieved superior SBS compared to the conventional hydrofluoric acid and silane combination, highlighting its potential as a safer and more effective surface treatment option for both ceramic types.
Keywords: Shear bond strength (SBS), Surface treatments, hydrofluoric acid etching, Lithium disilicate, air-particle abrasion, resin composite
Received: 27 Jun 2025; Accepted: 11 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Alqahtani, Alhelal, Almutairi, Alhassoon, Alshahrani, Alshahrani and Habib. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Syed Rashid Habib, Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.