In Vitro Tensile Bond Strength of Denture Repair Acrylic Resins to Primed Base Metal Alloys Using Two Different Processing Techniques
Authors: Banerjee Sarmistha , Engelmeier Robert L. , O’Keefe Kathy L. , Powers John M. 
Published: August 2009

Purpose: Approximately 38% of removable partial denture (RPD) failures involve fracture at the alloy/acrylic interface. Autopolymerizing resin is commonly used to repair RPDs. Poor chemical bonding of repair acrylic to base metal alloys can lead to microleakage and failure of the bond. Therefore, ideal repair techniques should provide a strong, adhesive bond. This investigation compared the tensile bond strength between cobalt‐chromium (Super Cast, Pentron Laboratory Technologies, Llc., Wallingford, CT) and nickel‐chromium (Rexalloy, Pentron Laboratory Technologies, Llc.) alloys and autopolymerized acrylic resin (Dentsply Repair Material, Dentsply Int, Inc, York, Pa) using three primers containing different functional monomers [UBar (UB), Sun Medical Co., Ltd., Shiga, Japan: Alloy Primer (AP) Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan; and MR Bond (MRB) Tokyuyama Dental Corp., Tokyo, Japan] and two processing techniques (bench cure and pressure‐pot cure).

Material and Methods: One hundred and twenty eight base metal alloy ingots were polished, air abraded, and ultrasonically cleaned. The control group was not primed. Specimens in the test groups were primed with one of the three metal primers. Autopolymerized acrylic resin material was bonded to the metal surfaces. Half the specimens were bench cured, and the other half were cured in a pressure pot. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C. The specimens were debonded under tension at a crosshead speed of 0.05 cm/min. The forces at which the bond failed were noted. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Fisher's PLSD post hoc test was used to determine significant differences (p < 0.05). Failure modes of each specimen were evaluated under a dissecting microscope.

Results: Significant differences in bond strength were observed between combinations of primers, curing methods, and alloys. Primed sandblasted specimens that were pressure‐pot‐cured had significantly higher bond strengths than primed sandblasted bench‐cured specimens. The pressure‐pot‐curing method had a significant effect on bond strength of all specimens except Co‐Cr alloy primed with UB. The highest bond strength was observed for both Co‐Cr and Ni‐Cr alloys that were sandblasted, primed with MRB, and pressure‐pot cured. Co‐Cr alloys primed with UB had the lowest bond strength whether bench cured or pressure‐pot cured. Primed specimens generally experienced cohesive bond failures within the primer or acrylic resin. Nonprimed specimens generally experienced adhesive bond failures at the resin/metal interface.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, MRB provided the highest bond strength to both Ni‐Cr and Co‐Cr alloys. Generally, bond strength improved significantly when specimens were primed. Pressure‐pot curing, in most cases, resulted in higher bond strength than bench curing. The results of this in vitro study suggest that MRB metal primer can be used to increase bond strength of autopolymerized repair acrylic resin to base metal alloys. Curing autopolymerized acrylic under pressure potentially increases bond strength.