journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to enamel,

dentine and enameldentine complex bonded with different
adhesive luting systems
Elif Ozturk a,*, Sukran Bolay b, Reinhard Hickel c, Nicoleta Ilie c
a

University of Kocaeli, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Yuvacik/Basiskele, Kocaeli, Turkey
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Sihhiye-06100, Ankara, Turkey
c
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Goethestrasse 70, 80336 Munich, Germany
b

article info

abstract

Article history:

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of porcelain

Received 23 November 2011

laminate veneers to 3 different surfaces by means of enamel, dentine, and enameldentine

Received in revised form

complex.

3 April 2012

Methods: One hundred thirty-five extracted human maxillary central teeth were used, and

Accepted 4 April 2012

the teeth were randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 15). The teeth were prepared with 3
different levels for bonding surfaces of enamel (E), dentine (D), and enameldentine complex
(ED). Porcelain discs (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) of 2 mm in thickness and 4 mm in

Keywords:

diameter were luted to the tooth surfaces by using 2 light-curing (RelyX Veneer [RV], 3M

Porcelain laminate veneers

ESPE; Variolink Veneer [VV], Ivoclar Vivadent) and a dual-curing (Variolink II [V2], Ivoclar

Dentine exposure

Vivadent) adhesive systems according to the manufacturers instructions. Shear bond

Adhesives

strength test was performed in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min until bonding
failure. Failure modes were determined under a stereomicroscope, and fracture surfaces
were evaluated with a scanning electron microscope. The data were statistically analysed
(SPSS 17.0) ( p = 0.05).
Results: Group RV-D exhibited the lowest bond strength value (5.42 ! 6.6 MPa). There was

statistically no difference among RV-D, V2-D (13.78 ! 8.8 MPa) and VV-D (13.84 ! 6.2 MPa)

groups ( p > 0.05). Group VV-E exhibited the highest bond strength value (24.76 ! 8.8 MPa).

Conclusions: The type of tooth structure affected the shear bond strength of the porcelain
laminate veneers to the 3 different types of tooth structures (enamel, dentine, and enamel
dentine complex).
Clinical significance: When dentine exposure is necessary during preparation, enough sound
enamel must be protected as much as possible to maintain a good bonding; to obtain
maximum bond strength, preparation margins should be on sound enamel.

# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

The porcelain laminate veneer technique bonds a thin

porcelain laminate to the tooth surface with dental adhesives

and resin cements in order to restore discoloured, worn,

fractured, malformed, or slightly malpositioned anterior
teeth.1 For the longevity of the porcelain laminate veneers,
a vital importance is attributed to the strength and durability
of the adhesion complex formed between the 3 different

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 2623442222.

zturk).
E-mail address: dtelifoz@gmail.com (E. O
0300-5712/$ see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.005

98

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

components: the tooth surface, the resin cement, and the

porcelain surface.1,2 Besides, many factors influence the longterm success of the porcelain laminate veneers, such as
structure of the tooth surface, preparation depth, type and
thickness of the porcelain, type of the resin cement and dental
adhesive, tooth morphology, and functional and parafunctional activities.1,3 Regarding preparation depth, enamel
reduction, depending on location usually 0.30.7 mm, is
necessary to remove the aprismatic and hypermineralized
enamel top surface, which can be resistant to acid etching.4,5
It is reported that preparation should be completely in
enamel to maintain an optimal bond with the porcelain
laminate veneers and to decrease the stresses in the
porcelain.4,6 Therefore, preparation technique becomes more
important for the longevity of the porcelain laminate veneers
because high failure rates of these restorations have been
attributed to the large exposed dentine surfaces.7 However, to
the knowledge of the authors, no in vitro study has reported the
effect of dentine exposure on the bond strength of the
porcelain laminate veneers in the dental literature.
Preparation for porcelain laminate veneers should be made
meticulously to maintain the preparation completely in
enamel.6,8 However, exposure of considerable amounts of
dentine is usually inevitable during the preparation, especially
along the cervical and proximal areas.9,10
Although improved new adhesives are developed, the bond
strength of porcelain to enamel is still superior as compared to
the bond strength of porcelain to dentine.11,12 Problems
associated with bonding to dentine are more complicated to
resolve than those associated with bonding to enamel because
of the characteristics of the dentine substrates, which include
lower inorganic content, tubular structure and variations in
this structure, and the presence of outward intratubular fluid
movement.13,14
Adhesive systems also play an important role in the longterm outcome of porcelain laminate veneers.15,16 To maintain
optimal bonding between porcelain and the tooth structure,
an optimal curing of the resin cement is necessary.1 Lightcuring resin cement is generally preferred by dentists for
cementation of porcelain laminate veneers due to their colour
stability and longer working time as compared to dual- or
chemical-curing resin cements.15,17
Although clinical trials are the most suitable tools to
evaluate the efficacy of the adhesive systems, long-term
clinical trials are difficult to perform because of the time and
rapid developments and changes in the adhesive systems.
Therefore, laboratory studies are still largely used to predict
the clinical behaviour of dental materials.18 The laboratory
tests most widely used to examine the bond strengths of the
adhesive systems to dental hard tissues are shear and tensile
bond strength tests.19
The aims of this study were as follows: (i) to assess whether
the shear bond strength of the porcelain veneers to dentine
and to enameldentine complex, which is obtained from
dentine exposure during preparation, is comparable with the
shear bond strength of the porcelain veneers to enamel; (ii) to
evaluate whether light-curing adhesive systems perform as
well as dual-curing adhesive systems by measuring the shear
bond strength between the porcelain and tooth surface. The
null hypotheses were as follows: (i) there is no difference in the

shear bond strength of the porcelain laminate veneers to

enamel, dentine, and enameldentine complex cemented
with 3 different resin cements; (ii) the type of the adhesive
system does not affect shear bond strength values; (iii) the
type of the adhesion surface of the prepared tooth does not
affect shear bond strength values.

2.

Materials and methods

The protocol of this study plan was approved by the Ethics

Committee of Hacettepe University (Approval Number: FON
07/27-42, 13.09.2007). One hundred thirty-five noncarious
human maxillary central teeth extracted within the last 6
months were used in this study. Two light-curing adhesive
systems Variolink Veneer (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and RelyX Veneer (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) a
dual-curing adhesive system Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent,
Schaan, Liechtenstein) and lithium disilicate glass-porcelain
IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)
were selected for this study. The descriptions of the adhesives
and the porcelain included in this study are summarized in
Table 1.

2.1.

Sample preparation technique

After removal of dental plaque, calculus, and periodontal

fibres, the teeth were stored in distilled water during the
experiment. The teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups
according to the prepared tooth surface (n = 45). All of the teeth
were mounted in acrylic resin blocks to provide better control
during tooth preparation.

2.1.1.

Preparation of enamel

Facial surfaces of the teeth were initially prepared by placing

depth-orientation grooves (0.5 mm in depth) with a depth
preparation
bur
(Diatech,
Coltene/Whaledent,
AG,
Switzerland). The preparation surfaces were painted with a
pen, which was insoluble in water. Then, the specimens were
prepared without exceeding the depth-orientation grooves to
provide flat enamel surface area, approximately 5 mm in
diameter, for luting the porcelain discs to the middle third of
the facial surface by grinding with silicon carbide abrasive
papers of grit sizes of 100, 400, and 600 (Leco1 VP 100, Leco
Instrumente GmbH, Germany). Preparations were continued
until the colour was removed from the middle third of the
painted facial surface. In total, 45 teeth were included for the
enamel preparation.

2.1.2.

Preparation of dentine

The facial surfaces of the specimens were prepared until a flat

area (approximately 5 mm in diameter) was provided only in
the dentine in the middle third of the teeth by grinding with
silicon carbide abrasive papers of grits 100, 400, and 600 (Leco1
VP 100, Leco Instrumente GmbH, Germany). In total, 45 teeth
were included for the dentine preparation.

2.1.3.

Preparation of enameldentine complex

Enamel preparations were continued with the controlled

preparations by grinding with silicon carbide abrasive papers

99

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

Table 1 Materials used in this study.

Brand name

Manufacturer

Variolink II

Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein

RelyXTM Veneer

3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany

Variolink Veneer

Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein

IPS e.max Press

Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein

Composition
Dimethacrylates
Inorganic fillers
Catalysts and Stabilizers
Pigments
BisGMA
TEGDMA
Zirconia/silica and fumed silica
Pigments
Photoinitiator
Dimethacrylates
Inorganic fillers
Ytterbium trifluoride
Catalysts and stabilizers
Pigments
SiO2, Li2O
K2O, P2O5
ZrO2, ZnO
other oxides
colour oxides

Filler loading
a

LOT number

73.4% weight
46.7% volumea
77.2% weightb
52.0% volumeb
66% weight
47% volume

K04678a
K35373b

60.1% weight
40% volume

M13040

9ER

M13076

According to manufacturers information.

Base.
b
Catalyst with high viscosity.
a

of grit 100, 400, and 600 (Leco1 VP 100, Leco Instrumente

GmbH, Germany) until dentine exposure occurred on the
cervical third and until this dentine exposure reached the
middle of the facial surface. Thus, it is maintained that
adhesion surfaces of the teeth contained approximately half
of the enamel and half of the dentine. In total, 45 teeth were
included for the enameldentine complex preparation.

2.2.

Fabrication of the porcelain veneers

Fabricated wax patterns of 4 mm in diameter and 12 mm in

height were prepared, invested in StarVest1-SOFT-3 investment (Weber Dental, Stuttgart, Germany), and allowed to
burnout in a furnace (Type CL-V2; Haraeus Kulzer, Hanau,
Germany) at temperatures of 800 8C for 60 min, 600 8C for
30 min, and 850 8C for 60 min. The investment and an ingot of
IPS e.max Press were then transferred to the furnace (EP 500;
IPS Empress, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and
automatically pressed (930 8C, 60 min, program 16). Porcelain
discs of 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height were obtained
from the pressed porcelains by cutting with a low speed saw
(IsoMet1 Low Speed Saw, Buehler1, Illinois, USA). All of the

porcelain discs were then ground with silicon carbide abrasive

paper of grits 400, 600, and 1200 (Leco1 VP 100, Leco
Instrumente GmbH, Germany).

2.3.

Bonding procedure

The bonding procedures with the 3 different resin cements are

listed and described in Table 2. Light polymerization was
performed according to the instructions of the manufacturers
for 30 s on the facial surfaces by using a light-emitting diode
(LED) polymerizing unit (Bluephase LED, Ivoclar Vivadent,
Schaan, Lichtenstein, 1200 mW/cm2).

2.4.

Shear bond strength test

After the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h at

37 8C, they were thermocycled between 5 8C and 55 8C in
deionized water for 5000 cycles. In the enameldentine
complex groups, the samples oriented with the enamel above
and dentine bottom. Therefore, shear load was applied next to
enamel. The samples were loaded until failure in a shear test
at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing

Table 2 Surface procedures of the teeth and porcelains.

Surface treatments
Enamel: 37% H3PO4 for 30 s
Dentine: 37% H3PO4 for 15 s
EnamelDentine: 37% H3PO4
for 3015 s
Porcelain: 5% HF for 60 s

Variolink Veneer
Tooth surface:
(1) Syntac Primer for 15 s
(2) Syntac Adhesive for 10 s
(3) Heliobond for 10 s
Porcelain surface:
(1) Monobond S for 60 s
(2) Heliobond for 10 s

RelyX Veneer
Tooth surface:
Adper Scottchbond 1XT for
10 s as 2 coats
Porcelain Surface:
RelyX Ceramic Primer for 60 s

H3PO4: Phosphoric acid (Total Etch, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein).

HF: Hydrofluoric acid (Vita Ceramics Etch, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Saeckingen, Germany).

Variolink II
Tooth surface:
(1) Syntac Primer for 15 s
(2) Syntac Adhesive for 10 s
(3) Heliobond for 10 s
Porcelain surface:
(1) Monobond S for 60 s
(2) Heliobond for 10 s

100

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

machine (MCE 2000ST, Quicktest Prufpartner GmbH, Langenfeld, Germany).

2.5.
Morphological study using scanning electron
microscope (SEM)
Following shear testing, all fractured samples were examined
under a stereomicroscope (ZEISS, Axioskop 2 MAT, Oberkochen, Germany). The debonded adhesion surfaces were also
examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to identify
the failure mode. Possible failure modes are classified as
follows:
(i) adhesive failure between the porcelain and tooth surface
within the bonding interface,
(ii) mixed failure [partial adhesive failure between the
porcelain and tooth surface and/or resin cement combined with partial cohesive failure (less than 40% in the
bonding area) in tooth structure and resin cement],
(iii) cohesive failure in tooth structure and resin cement.20,21
To quantify the mixed failures, the percentage of cohesive
failure area was estimated on each specimen by means of
imaging software.

2.6.

Statistical analysis

The dependent variable in this study was shear bond strength.

The 2 independent variables were type of adhesion surface
(enamel: E; dentine: D; enameldentine: ED) and type of
adhesive system (Variolink Veneer: VV; RelyX Veneer: RV;
Variolink II: V2). Data were statistically analysed using oneway ANOVA and Tukeys HSD post hoc test (SPSS 17.0) ( p = 0.05)
as well as a multivariate analysis (general linear model) to test
the influence of surface preparation, resin cement type, and
surface preparation and resin cement type together.

3.

Results

Normality tests were performed, and the strength values were

found to be normally distributed. The mean shear bond
strength values and standard deviations of the nine experimental groups are presented in Table 3. One-way ANOVA
showed that significant differences in the mean shear bond
strength values existed among the groups ( p < 0.05). Group
VV-E exhibited the highest mean shear bond strength value
(24.76 ! 8.8). However, there were statistically no differences
between group VV-E, group RV-E; group RV-E-D; group VV-E-D;
group V2-E; and group V2-E-D ( p > 0.05). Group RV-D showed
the lowest mean shear bond strength value (5.42 ! 6.6). The
differences were not statistically significant between the
groups of RV-D, VV-D, and V2-D ( p > 0.05).
Table 4 presents the level of the effect of type of the resin
cement and the adhesion surface on the shear bond strength
of the porcelain laminate veneers by showing the eta-squared
values derived from ANOVA analysis. Both type of the resin
cement alone and type of the adhesion surface alone revealed
statistically significant effect on the shear bond strength
values of the groups ( p < 0.05). The effect of type of the

Table 3 Mean shear bond strengths (MPa) and standard

deviations of the groups.
Groups

Mean MPa (SD)

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

22.46 (9.2) ab
20.73 (9.2) ab
5.42 (6.6) c
24.76 (8.8) a
23.97 (9.5) ab
13.84 (6.2) bc
23.64 (13.1) ab
23.01 (7.8) ab
13.78 (8.8) bc

RV-E
RV-E-D
RV-D
VV-E
VV-E-D
VV-D
V2-E
V2-E-D
V2-D

Superscript letters show statistically homogeneous subgroups

( p > 0.05).

adhesion surface alone on the shear bond strength values of

the groups was the highest followed by type of the resin
cement alone (Table 4). However, type of the resin cement
together with type of the adhesion surface showed no
significant effect on the shear bond strength values ( p > 0.05).
Failure mode distributions of the nine groups are presented
in Table 5. The most frequently experienced failure type was
found as adhesive at the bonded resin cement and adhesion
surface interface. Adhesive failures were found on 109 (80.7%)
out of 135 (100%) specimens. Cohesive (32.2%) and mixed (23
17.1%) failures were seen in the groups of RV-E, RV-E-D, VV-E,
and V2-E-D.
Table 6 shows the level of the effect of type of the resin
cement and the adhesion surface on the failure modes of the
groups by showing the eta-squared values derived from
ANOVA analysis. Type of the resin cement, type of the
adhesion surface, and both together had significant effect on
the failure modes of the groups ( p < 0.05). Type of the
adhesion surface alone showed the highest effect on the
failure modes followed by type of the resin cement alone and
type of the resin cement together with type of the adhesion
surface (Table 6).
Fig. 1a and b presents box plot graphics of the descriptive
statistics, which was made on the basis of the independent
parameters. No significant difference was found between the
shear bond strength values of the dual-curing resin cement
(Variolink II) and the light-curing resin cements (Variolink
Veneer and RelyX Veneer) (Fig. 1a; p > 0.05). Shear bond
strength values of the groups, in which the porcelain discs

Table 4 The effect of included parameters on the shear

bond strengths with eta-squared values.
Parameters

Dependent variable

Resin cement type

Shear bond strength*
Shear bond strength*
Preparation type
of the surface
Resin cement
Shear bond strength
type Preparation
type of the surface

Eta-squared
valuesa

0.034
0.001

0.052
0.3

0.528

0.025

a
The higher the eta-squared value, the stronger the effect of the
independent parameter on the shear bond strength.
*
Statistically significant effect ( p < 0.05).

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

Table 5 Failure mode distributions of the groups.

Groups

Adhesive

Mixed

Cohesive

Group RV-E

5
33.3%a
4.6%b
9
60%a
8.3%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
6
40%a
5.5%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
15
100%a
13.8%b
14
93.3%a
12.8%b
15
100%a
13.8%b

9
60%a
39%c
5
33.3%a
22%c
0

1
6.7%a
33.3%d
1
6.7%a
33.3%d
0

9
60%a
39%c
0

1
6.7%a
33.3%d
0

Group RV-E-D

Group RV-D

Group VV-E

Group VV-E-D

Group VV-D

Group V2-E

Group V2-E-D

Group V2-D

a
b
c
d

Within group.
Within adhesive.
Within mixed.
Within cohesive.

cemented to enamel and to enameldentine complex surfaces, were not statistically different. However, they were
statistically different from those of the dentine groups (Fig. 1b;
p < 0.05).
Figs. 25 show SEM micrographs of the tooth surfaces after
the shear test. Fig. 2 illustrates a mixed failure of a sample
from the group RV-E-D. This type of failure designates a
mixture of adhesive failure and cohesive failure (40%<) within
the same fracture surface and therefore classified as mixed
failure. An example of a cohesively fractured sample is
presented in Fig. 3. The cohesive failures occurred more than
75% of the bonding area either at the tooth substrate and resin
cement. As for adhesive failure, Fig. 4 (V2-E-D) shows that the

Table 6 The effect of included parameters on the failure

modes of the groups.
Parameters

Dependent variable

Resin cement type

Failure mode*
Failure mode*
Preparation type
of the surface
Resin cement
Failure mode*
type Preparation
type of the surface
a

Eta-squared
valuesa

0.001
0.001

0.184
0.266

0.001

0.181

The higher the eta-squared value, the stronger the effect of the
independent parameter on the failure mode.
*
Statistically significant effect ( p < 0.05).

101

adhesion surface of the sample included approximately half

enamel (50%) and half dentine (50%). Fig. 5 shows an adhesive
failure from the Group V2-D. Fracture resin tags on the dentine
surface after shear test were also seen in Fig. 5.

4.

Discussion

One of the ways in which clinicians select products for their

practices is by comparing the products performances in in vivo
and in vitro studies.22 Although in vivo trials are the ultimate
tests to evaluate the performance of the adhesive systems, too
many variables involved make it difficult to differentiate the
true reason for failure. Shear and tensile tests have been most
commonly used to measure the bond strength of dental
materials because they are easy to perform, requiring minimal
equipment and specimen preparation.23 Compared to tensile
tests, specimen preparation, especially in the case of brittle
glass ceramic materials, can easily be made for shear bond
tests.24 Furthermore, interfacial stress during sample preparation, such as sawing and trimming of the test samples, is
reflected by the number of pretest failures, as often occurs on
brittle materials like ceramics. For this reason, tensile test has
been questioned whether an appropriate method when tough
materials like ceramics and enamel are involved in bonding.25
Therefore, this study was conducted in vitro to evaluate the
shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers to dental
hard tissues.
The results support the rejection of the first null hypothesis
that there is no difference in the shear bond strength of
porcelain laminate veneers to enamel, dentine, and enamel
dentine complex cemented with 3 different resin cements.
Within the dentine groups, no significant differences between
the 3 cements were found. Although, dentine groups did not
show a statistically significant difference among themselves,
they exhibited lower shear bond strength values than the
enamel and enameldentine complex groups (Table 3).
Bonding of the porcelain restorations to enamel is still
superior as compared to bonding to dentine, although
developments in adhesive systems were made. However,
the groups VV-D and V2-D did not statistically differ from the
groups RV-E-D, VV-E-D, V2-E-D and RV-E (Table 3). This is
promising for future researches in terms of developing the
bond strength of porcelains to dentine. Abo-Hamar et al.26
evaluated the shear bond strength of 5 different luting resin
cement systems for conventional ceramics. Supporting the
findings of our study, they found higher shear bond strength to
enamel than to dentine for a standard luting resin cement
(Variolink II). They also reported that the type of the tooth
substrate in terms of enamel and dentine affected the bond
strength of the tested luting resin cements.
The results of this study demonstrated that the effect of the
type of preparation surface on shear bond strength was much
higher than the effect of the resin cement type (Table 4).
Besides, according to the results of the descriptive statistics of
the tested resin cements, there was no significant difference
between the 3 different resin cements (Fig. 1a). Thus, the
second null hypothesis can be accepted. Therefore, it can be
said that light-curing resin cements performed as well as dualcuring resin cements within the limitations of this study.

102

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

Fig. 1 (a and b) Box plot graphics of the descriptive statistics.

Hikita et al.27 investigated the bonding effectiveness of

adhesive resin cements to both enamel and dentine and
reported that etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and self-adhesive
resin cements can have comparable bond strength to enamel
and dentine when they are correctly applied. The use of a dualcuring resin cement with a low autopolymerization potential,
the use of a light-curing bonding agent converted to a dualcuring adhesive resin cement, and no separate light polymerization of the bonding agent before cementation can negatively
affect the bond strength of the restoration.19
In the present study, the type of preparation surface had a
significant effect on the shear bond strength. When the 3
analysed tooth surfaces were compared, there was no
significant difference between the enamel and enamel
dentine complex groups. However, dentine groups exhibited
lower bond strength values as compared to the other 2 groups
(Fig. 1b). Therefore, the results support the rejection of the
third null hypothesis.
It has been reported that shear bond strength of
adhesives to dentine should be at least 1720 MPa and to
enamel should be at least 20 MPa to adequately compensate for the stresses caused by polymerization shrinkage to
the composite resin.19,28 According to the results of this
study, mean shear bond strength values of the enamel and
enameldentine complex groups were above 20 MPa.
However, mean shear bond strength values of the dentine

groups were below 17 MPa. In this case, even if dentine

exposure occurs during the preparation, porcelain laminate veneers can exhibit a durable bond between the tooth
surface and porcelain in the presence of enough enamel,
which should be at least half of the prepared surface in
relation to the results of our study. However, the more the
dentine is exposed, the weaker the shear bond strength of
the porcelain. Therefore, it has been suggested that for
porcelain laminate veneer restorations, all preparation
margins should be in sound enamel.4
In the dental literature, many studies evaluating
porcelain laminate veneers in vitro have reported these
restorations as very successful.2931 Andreasen et al.30 and
Stokes and Hood32 reported that extracted incisor teeth
restored with porcelain laminate veneers exhibited their
original strength. In a study examining adhesive interfaces between porcelain laminate veneer and tooth
surface by field-emission scanning electron microscopy
(FE-SEM), the micrographs showed that the porcelain
laminate veneers exhibited good retention to the tooth
surface.2 Magne and Douglas31 reported that with the
proper use of dentine adhesives, teeth restored with
porcelain laminate veneers can exhibit mechanical behaviour similar to that of intact teeth.
Until now, no effort has been made on assessing the shear
bond strength of porcelain veneers when dentine is exposed

Fig. 2 Mixed failure from the group RV-E-D.

Fig. 3 Cohesive failure from the group RV-E.

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

Fig. 4 Adhesive failure from the group V2-E-D.

during preparation in the cervical third of the tooth. Beside the

test methods, the results of the study give available information. All of the mixed or cohesive failures were in the tooth
and/or cement, rather than the porcelain material. This
interfacial failure with minimal cohesive fractures in dentine
and/or resin may be related to the adhesives ability to resist
flaw propagation, such as crack growth or peeling resistance
from the substrate.
Classification of the failure modes in this study was similar
to the classification of failure modes reported by Scherrer
et al.21 All of the mixed failures included tooth substrate and
resin cement partially being less than 40% of the total
adhesion area. All cohesive failures were seen in the tooth
substrate (Fig. 3). When the fractured tooth substrate was in
large portions (40%>), it was classified as cohesive failure.
When the failure occurred in adhesion between the tooth
substrate and the bonded material, we described it as adhesive
failure even if we observed very small amounts of adhesive
resin on the tooth surface (10%<).
Regardless of which test method was used, many authors
reported true interfacial failure with minimal cohesive
fractures in dentine or resin. However, the reported mixed
failure modes are often not describing the percentage of
cohesive failure and within which material (dentine, adhesive
resin or restorative material).21 In this study, the mixed

103

failures were considered with the percentage of cohesive

failure including less than 40% of the bonding area. However,
there is still no clear consensus in the literature regarding the
classification of the failure modes and distinction between
cohesive and mixed mode. Therefore, further researches are
needed to distinct the failure modes correctly.
In the shear bond strength test of composite resins bonded
to ceramics, cohesive failures were seen 50100% in an
experimental study, which reported that shear bond strength
tests did not determine the true sense of adhesive bonding
quality.23 In our study, the cohesive fracture rate (32.2%) was
observed in only 1 sample in each of the 3 groups and was
therefore very low. Predisposing factors for cohesive failure
are structural features of the extracted tooth, increase in the
fragility of the extracted tooth after a long waiting period,
weakened bonding surfaces after the acid-etching process,
failure between adhesive interfaces, and insufficient and poor
hybrid layer formation.33,34 Additionally, it was reported that
cohesive failure of the sample is an intrinsic side effect of
shear bond strength tests.25 On the other hand, recent studies
revealed a positive correlation shear bond strength and the
physical properties of the resin composite used.35 It has been
suggested that combination of an adhesive system from one
manufacturer with a resin composite from the same manufacturer provides superior bonding of the resin composite to
dentine compared with the combination of an adhesive
system from one manufacturer with a resin composite from
another manufacturer. Therefore, comparative bond strength
tests are possible at the level of identical adhesive/composite
combinations.25,35
In view of the chosen testing methods, shear tests have
been criticized as being inappropriate due to the high
frequency of cohesive failures.23 The present study, however,
found adhesive failures as the most frequent fracture pattern
(10980.7%).
When the FE-SEM images were analysed, adhesive failures
were more likely to occur between the tooth substrate and
porcelain rather than between resin cement and porcelain.
Furthermore, the FE-SEM analyses demonstrated that most of
the dentinal tubules were covered with the dentine adhesives
(Fig. 5). Therefore, it can be assumed that dentine adhesives
sufficiently penetrated into the dentinal tubules even under a
ceramic restoration. This type of failure has also been
observed in a study in the dental literature.36

Fig. 5 Adhesive failure from the group V2-D.

104

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

Adhesive performance of the ceramic restorations on

enamel and dentine has been employed using several
methodologically distinct approaches. However, there is still
need for more researches to determine whether bond strength
of the restoration influences when dentine is exposed during
the preparation.

5.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions

can be addressed:
1. The type of tooth structure enamel, dentine, and enamel
dentine complex affected the shear bond strength of the
porcelain laminate veneers to the 3 different types of tooth
structures (enamel, dentine, and enameldentine complex).
2. Because shear bond strength was the lowest on dentine, it
should be avoided that the porcelain laminate veneer
restoration is bonded only to dentine.
3. The type of resin cements dual-cure or only light-cure
did not affect the shear bond strength of the porcelain
laminate veneer restorations.

Acknowledgements
This investigation was supported in part by winning of the
CED.IADR (Continental European Division of the International
Association for Dental Research) Visiting Scholar Stipend and
conducted in Dental School of the Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversity, which is a collaborating research laboratory in
the CED.IADR.
zturks thesis, which was
This study is based on Dr. Elif O
submitted to Department of Restorative Dentistry of the
Faculty of Dentistry at Hacettepe University, in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the PhD degree.

references

1. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G.

Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. Journal of
Dentistry 2000;28:16377.
2. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P,
Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers bonded to tooth structure: an
ultra-morphological FE-SEM examination of the adhesive
interface. Dental Materials 1999;15:
10519.
3. Zarone F, Epifania E, Leone G, Sorrentino R, Ferrari M.
Dynamometric assessment of the mechanical resistance of
porcelain veneers related to tooth preparation: a
comparison between two techniques. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 2006;95:35463.
4. Rouse JS, Robbins JW. Porcelain veneers. In: Summitt JB,
Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, editors. Fundamentals of
operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago:
Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.; 2006. p. 46387.
5. Omar H, Atta O, El-Mowafy O, Khan SA. Effect of CAD-CAM
porcelain veneers thickness on their cemented color. Journal
of Dentistry 2010;38:e959.

6. Troedson M, Derand T. Shear stresses in the adhesive layer

under porcelain veneers. A finite element method study.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavia 1998;56:25762.
7. Sadowsky SJ. An overview of treatment considerations for
esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 2006;96:43342.
8. Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Essig ME, Givan DA, Pan YH.
Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain
laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and
restorative material in vitro. Journal of Dentistry 2012;40:
2029.
9. Brunton PA, Richmond S, Wilson NH. Variations in the
depth of preparations for porcelain laminate veneers.
European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry
1997;5:8992.
10. Nattress BR, Youngson CC, Patterson CJ, Martin DM, Ralph
JP. An in vitro assessment of tooth preparation for porcelain
veneer restorations. Journal of Dentistry 1995;23:16570.
11. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The
clinical performance of adhesives. Journal of Dentistry
1998;26:120.
12. Xing W, Jiang T, Ma X, Liang S, Wang Z, Sa Y, Wang Y.
Evaluation of the esthetic effect of resin cements and try-in
pastes on ceromer veneers. Journal of Dentistry 2010;38:
e87e94.
13. Stangel I, Ellis TH, Sacher E. Adhesion to tooth structure
mediated by contemporary bonding systems. Dental Clinics
of North America 2007;51:67794. vii.
14. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A,
Lambrechts P, Braem M, ve digerleri.. A critical review of the
durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results.
Journal of Dental Research 2005;84:11832.
15. Ozturk E, Hickel R, Bolay S, Ilie N. Micromechanical
properties of veneer luting resins after curing
through ceramics. Clinical Oral Investigation 2012;
16:13946.
16. ALGhazali N, Laukner J, Burnside G, Jarad FD, Smith PW,
Preston AJ. An investigation into the effect of try-in pastes,
uncured and cured resin cements on the overall color of
ceramic veneer restorations: an in vitro study. Journal of
Dentistry 2010;38:e7886.
17. Turgut S, Bagis B. Colour stability of laminate veneers: an
in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry 2011;39:e5764.
18. Perdigao J. Dentin bonding as a function of dentin structure.
Dental Clinics of North America 2002;46:277301. vi.
19. Pekkan G, Hekimoglu C. Evaluation of shear and tensile
bond strength between dentin and ceramics using dualpolymerizing resin cements. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2009;102:24252.
20. Braga RR, Meira JBC, Boaro LCC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to
tooth structure: a critical review of macro test methods.
Dental Materials 2010;26:3849.
21. Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the
bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical
literature review. Dental Materials 2010;26:7893.
22. Lee JJ, Nettey-Marbell A, Cook Jr A, Pimenta LA, Leonard R,
Ritter AV. Using extracted teeth for research: the effect of
storage medium and sterilization on dentin bond strengths.
The Journal of the American Dental Association 2007;138:
1599603.
23. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of
resin composite bonded to ceramic. Journal of Dental Research
1995;74:15916.
24. Shimada Y, Kikushima D, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond
strength of resin-bonding systems to cervical enamel.
American Journal of Dentistry 2002;15:3737.
25. Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to
dental hard tissue A review. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
2010;12:34371.

journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 97105

26. Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller KA, Jung H, Federlin M, Friedl KH,

Schmalz G. Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive
resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clinical Oral
Investigations 2005;9:1617.
27. Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt
K, ve digerleri MT. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting
agents to enamel and dentin. Dental Materials 2007;23:7180.
28. Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current
concepts on adhesion to dentin. Critical Reviews of Oral
Biology & Medicine 1997;8:30635.
29. Stacey GD. A shear stress analysis of the bonding of
porcelain veneers to enamel. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
1993;70:395402.
30. Andreasen FM, Flugge E, Daugaard-Jensen J, Munksgaard
EC. Treatment of crown fractured incisors with laminate
veneer restorations: an experimental study. Endodontics &
Dental Traumatology 1992;8:305.
31. Magne P, Douglas WH. Porcelain veneers: dentin bonding
optimization and biomimetic recovery of the crown.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

105

International Journal of Prosthodontics 1999;12:

11121.
Stokes AN, Hood JA. Impact fracture characteristics of intact
and crowned human central incisors. Journal of Oral
Rehabilitation 1993;20:8995.
Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM.
Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dental
Materials 1995;11:11725.
Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why do shear bond
tests pull out dentin? Journal of Dental Research 1997;76:
1298307.
Thomsen KB, Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites: strength of
the bond to dentin versus mechanical properties. Clinical
Oral Investigation 2007;11:459.
Akgungor G, Akkayan B, Gaucher H. Influence of ceramic
thickness and polymerization mode of a resin-luting agent
on early bond strength and durability with a lithium
disilicate-based ceramic system. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2005;94:23441.