The Potential for Bonding Titanium Restorations

Purpose The use of titanium for implants has shown the biological acceptance of the metal. Recently, methods of using titanium for restorations, crowns, and bridges have been introduced using both cast and spark erosion systems for fabrication. A potential also exists for using titanium for bonded (Maryland) bridges. Materials and Methods In this study, the potential for bonding titanium was investigated by cementing with various adhesives: (A) metal to metal, (B) metal to enamel, and (C) comparing with a known procedure of bonding nickel‐chromium. Truncated cones of pure titanium were fabricated with a 5‐mm circular face for bonding to a larger titanium disc embedded in a plastic ring. A special jig was used to pull the bonded cone from the disc on an Instron tensile testing machine (Instron Corporation, Canton, MA). The resin‐metal adhesives used were: (1) Infinity, (2) Metabond, (3) All‐Bond 2, and (4) Panavia. These were compared with (5) nickel‐chromium cones sandblasted and bonded to nickel‐chromium with Panavia. Titanium cones were also bonded to human enamel with (6) Panavia and (7) Metabond. The 10 samples in each group were subjected to tensile force, and point of fracture was recorded. The data were subjected to an analysis of variance with a Scheffe F test at the 95% level of significance. Results The results of tensile forces in MPa were (1) Infinity, 28.1 ± 3.6; (2) Metabond, 28.1 ± 1; (3) All‐Bond 2, 49.5 ± 4.3; (4) Panavia, 57.9 ± 3.1; (5) Panavia to nickel‐chromium, 42.9 ± 6.6; (6) Panavia to enamel, 18.5 ± 4.7; and (7) Metabond to enamel, 19.3 ± 3.5. Titanium was most effectively bonded with All‐Bond 2 and Panavia, with Panavia samples significantly better than Panavia to nickel‐chromium samples. Conclusions It was concluded that titanium bonded restorations with certain adhesive cements were a definite possibility.