Comparison Of Tensile Bond Strengths Research Articles

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Soft Denture Liner Material on Denture Base Resins

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the tensile bond strength (TBS) of a silicone-based soft denture liner material on denture bases produced via conventional, subtractive, and additive manufacturing techniques and examine the effect of aluminum oxide particle abrasion (APA) on TBS. Material and Methods: A total of 48 cylindrical denture base resin samples were manufactured using three different techniques: conventional, subtractive, and additive manufacturing. The samples were divided into two groups: control and APA. All samples were separated at the center, and the soft liner was applied to the corresponding surfaces. The specimens then underwent TBS testing. Data were analyzed using Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests. Results: Two-way ANOVA results indicated a significant difference among the denture base resins, while no significant difference was found between the control and APA groups. The highest TBS was observed in the subtractive-manufactured APA group, while the lowest TBS was in the additive-manufactured APA group. Significant differences were found between the subtractive and additive-manufactured groups (p=0.022). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that TBS varies with the DB's manufacturing technique. While APA increased TBS in subtractive manufacturing, it had no statistically significant effect. Further research should explore different soft lining materials and consider in vivo conditions for more comprehensive insights.

An in vitro comparison of tensile bond strengths of resin- and methacrylate-based sealers to dentin, gutta-percha, and resin-based coated core surfaces

An in vitro comparison of tensile bond strengths of resin- and methacrylate-based sealers to dentin, gutta-percha, and resin-based coated core surfaces

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed-Fixed Versus Cantilever Single- and Double-Abutted Resin-Bonded Bridges Dental Prosthesis.

Resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDP) are minimally invasive alternatives to traditional full-coverage fixed partial dentures as they rely on resin cements for retention. This study compared and evaluated the tensile bond strength of three different resin-bonded bridge designs, namely, three-unit fixed-fixed, two-unit cantilever single abutment, and three-unit cantilever double-abutted resin-bonded bridge. Furthermore, the study attempted to compare the tensile bond strengths of the Maryland and Rochette types of resin-bonded bridges. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of seventy-five extracted maxillary incisors were collected and later were mounted on the acrylic blocks. Three distinct resin-bonded metal frameworks were designed: three-unit fixed-fixed (n = 30), two-unit cantilever single abutment (n = 30), and a three-unit cantilever double abutment (n = 30). The main groups were further divided into two subgroups based on the retainer design such as Rochette and Maryland. The different prosthesis designs were cemented to the prepared teeth. Later, abutment preparations were made on all specimens keeping the preparation as minimally invasive and esthetic oriented. Impression of the preparations were made using polyvinyl siloxane impression material, followed by pouring cast using die stone. A U-shaped handle of 1.5 mm diameter sprue wax with a 3 mm hole in between was attached to the occlusal surface of each pattern. The wax patterns were sprued and cast in a cobalt–chromium alloy. The castings were cleaned by sandblasting, followed by finishing and polishing. Lastly, based on the study group, specimens for Rochette bridge were perforated to provide mechanical retention between resin cement and metal, whereas the remaining 15 specimens were sandblasted on the palatal side to provide mechanical retention (Maryland bridge). In order to evaluate the tensile bond strength, the specimens were subjected to tensile forces on a universal testing machine with a uniform crosshead speed. The fixed-fixed partial prosthesis proved superior to both cantilever designs, whereas the single abutment cantilever design showed the lowest tensile bond strength. Maryland bridges uniformly showed higher bond strengths across all framework designs. Within the limitations of this study, the three-unit fixed-fixed design and Maryland bridges had greater bond strengths, implying that they may demonstrate lower clinical failure than cantilever designs and Rochette bridges.

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Permasoft® and GC Reline Soft® Resilient Liners after Denture Base Surface Pretreatment

Objectives: The surface treatment of intaglio denture base surface by sandblasting followed by Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) monomer might enhance the bond strength of resilient liners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare Tensile Bond Strength (TBS) of two resilient liners after surface treatment of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) resins by sandblasting and MMA monomer. Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixty PMMA resin blocks were randomly divided into eight groups of 20 blocks each based on type of resilient long term liner used (P=PermaSoft and G=GC Reline Soft) and the surface treatment performed (C=untreated Controls, S=Sandblasted, M=MMA monomer treated and SM=Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated: Group PC (PermaSoft untreated Controls), PS (PermaSoft Sandblasted), PM (PermaSoft MMA monomer treated) and PSM (PermaSoft Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated, GC (GC Reline Soft untreated Controls), GS (GC Reline Soft Sandblasted), GM (GC Reline Soft MMA monomer treated) and GSM (GC Reline Soft Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated). Each specimen was prepared by joining two PMMA resin blocks having standard dimensions of 10 × 10 × 40mm with either of the resilient liner of thickness of 10 × 10 × 3mm. The prepared 80 specimens were subjected to testing of TBS by universal testing machine. Also, the types of failure, whether adhesive, cohesive or mixed, were determined by stereomicroscope. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test was used to compare TBS of different surface treatment group with similar resilient liner. Student T-test was used to compare TBS of different resilient liner with similar surface treatment. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: There was highly significant difference in mean TBS of four surface treatment subgroups within both the groups (P<0.001). The Tukey post hoc test showed significant difference (P<0.05) between group PC=0.837 ± 0.120MPa and PSM=1.104 ± 0.234MPa; and GS=1.304 ± 0.261MPa and GM=2.053 ± 0.784MPa and highly significant difference (P<0.001) between group PS=0.741 ± 0.103 MPa) and PSM=1.104 ± 0.234MPa); and GS=1.304 ± 0.261MPa) and GSM=2.176 ± 0.262MPa. The mean TBS of GC Reline Soft was significantly higher (<0.001) than PermaSoft in various surface treatment groups. The overall modes of failures were predominantly cohesive type (63.75%) followed by mixed type (18.75%) and adhesive type (17.50%). Conclusions: All groups tested had mean bond strength values greater than the minimum acceptable standard (0.44MPa) for clinical application. MMA monomer treatment alone or in combination with sandblasting resulted in increase of the mean TBS whereas sandblasting resulted in decrease of the mean TBS of both PermaSoft and GC Reline Soft specimens.

Comparison of tensile bond strength of ball attachments made of different materials to root canal dentin after chewing simulation

BackgroundDebonding of ball attachments is one of the complications that annoy teeth supported overdenture wearers. The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) polymers are widely applied in the dental field. The purpose of the current study was to compare the tensile bond strength of ball attachments made of such materials and the commonly used titanium ones after 5 years of overdenture insertion and removal (5000 cycles) in addition to chewing simulation (1,200,000 cycle).MethodsExtracted mandibular canines (N = 60) were randomly allocated into three groups and received ball attachments; titanium (group TI; N = 20), PEEK (group PE; N = 20), PEKK (group PK; N = 20). In each group, the samples were divided into two subgroups whereas tensile bond strength was measured pre aging (T0; n = 10) and post aging (T1; n = 10). Tensile bond strength was measured by the Pull out test using the Universal testing machine. Failure mode analysis was determined by examination of the samples’ surfaces under 65X stereomicroscope. The resulting data followed normal distribution and the significance level was set at (α = 0.05).ResultsOne Way Anova showed statistically significant difference between the three groups (P < .00001). PostHoc Tukey test showed statistically significant difference between the groups TI and PE, TI and PK and no statistically significant difference between the groups PE and PK. Paired t test showed statistically significant difference in the tensile bond strength pre and post aging in each group.ConclusionsPEEK and PEKK ball attachments could be concluded to have a higher tensile bond strength compared to the titanium ones when bonded to root dentin. Tensile bond strength of such attachments may decrease with aging as well. Clinically, the higher tensile bond strength may have a lesser rate of debonding and thus reduced patient apprehension.

Comparison of tensile bond strength of denture reline materials on denture bases fabricated with CAD-CAM technology

Statement of problemStudies that have analyzed the bond strength of resilient denture liners to milled denture bases are sparse, and the authors are unaware of research that has investigated the tensile bond strength of denture relining materials to 3D-printed denture bases. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the tensile bond strength of both hard and soft denture reline materials on denture bases fabricated by 3D printing and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) milling technology. Material and methodsInjected, milled, and printed denture base specimens were fabricated (n=30) and bonded to 5 different denture reline materials: soft chairside reline (Coe Soft and PermaSoft), hard chairside reline (Tokuyama Rebase ii and Kooliner), and hard laboratory reline (ProBase Cold). Specimens of each reline material were divided into 5 groups (n=10) and were placed in distilled water for 24 hours before tensile testing. Maximum tensile stress values before failure were recorded, and the failure mode was also determined. The type of failure was analyzed by a scanning electron microscope. Statistics were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and multiple comparison tests (α=.05). ResultsOverall, no statistically significant difference in tensile bond strength was found in the injected, milled, and printed denture groups. However, the printed denture base group demonstrated significantly lower values of tensile bond strength (P<.05) with PermaSoft, Tokuyama Rebase ii, and ProBase Cold groups than other denture base groups (milled and injected). The milled denture bases had the highest mean value of tensile bond strength with 4 of the 5 denture relining materials tested (Coe Soft, PermaSoft, Tokuyama Rebase ii, and Kooliner). No statistically significant difference (P>.05) was found among the injected, milled, and printed denture bases when relined with Kooliner. When comparing the denture reline type, the lowest values were seen with the soft chairside relining materials, and highest values with the hard laboratory reline material. Among the modes of failure, adhesive failures were observed predominantly with the printed denture base materials relined with soft chairside relining materials, while cohesive and mixed modes of failure were found in the milled and injected denture base groups. ConclusionsThe printed denture bases had significantly lower tensile bond strength values than the injection and milled denture bases with the PermaSoft, Tokuyama Rebase ii, and ProBase Cold denture relines, while milled denture bases demonstrated the highest values of tensile bond strength for all chairside relining groups. In addition, the soft chairside relining materials showed the lowest tensile bond strength values regardless of the denture processing method with respect to the denture base type (injected, printed, and milled) compared with the hard relining materials.

Comparison of tensile bond strength of new and rebonded Symetri Clear™ ceramic brackets with Transbond™ XT or BluGloo™, with or without surface treatment: An in vitro study

This study sought to determine the bond strength of the Symetri Clear™ bracket after rebonding (reused) for a second and third time. Symetri Clear™ mandibular incisor brackets were bonded to bovine incisors and divided into six experimental groups. Two groups underwent tensile bond strength testing, and the remaining four groups were debonded using the manufacturer's recommended plier. Two groups were rebonded twice following surface preparation with Ortho SoloTM and two groups were rebonded twice without surface preparation. The rebonded brackets also underwent tensile bond strength testing after each rebonding event as well as receiving an Adhesive Remnant Index score. One-way ANOVA found a statistically significant difference in bond strength among the six groups (P<0.0001). Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD, honestly significant difference) Test found significant differences in tensile bond strength of groups which did not undergo surface preparation prior to rebonding. One-way ANOVA found a P-value of 0.2563 and thus no significant difference in ARI among the different groups. There was no significant difference in the tensile bond strength of Symetri ClearTM brackets initially bonded with either Transbond™ XT or BluGloo™ and no significant difference between the initial tensile bond strength and the first or second rebond tensile bond strength. Rebonding Symetri Clear™ brackets without surface treatment did show significantly reduced tensile bond strength.

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength Between Fissure Sealants Placed After Rubber Cup Polishing and Air Polishing of Enamel Surface (An in vitro study)

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength Between Fissure Sealants Placed After Rubber Cup Polishing and Air Polishing of Enamel Surface (An in vitro study)

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Addition Silicone with Different Custom Tray Materials Using Different Retentive Methods

To compare the bond strength of addition silicone with different commonly used custom tray materials by means of different retentive methods (mechanical, chemical, and a combination of chemical and mechanical methods). Fabrications of 90 samples of different tray resin materials were done using an aluminum mold. They were divided into three main groups. Perforations, adhesive application, and a combination of both were done according to the grouping of samples. Polyvinyl siloxane material (medium body) was loaded over the samples. A universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/minute was used to determine the tensile bond strength of tray resin samples to medium body impression material. Based on these values, Student's-test, group statistics, and ANOVA test were used for statistical analysis. Visible light cure (VLC) resin showed the highest bond strength in chemicomechanical methods. This was followed by repair resin material. Tray resin material showed poor bond strength in all three retentive methods. The mechanical method was the least retentive in all three resin materials. VLC tray resin material can be used with chemical and mechanical retention in clinical situations to make predictably accurate elastomeric impressions. It was concluded that VLC tray resin shows good bond strength with polyvinyl siloxane impression material when both mechanical perforations and adhesive applications were done.

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Soft Liners to an Acrylic Resin Denture Base with Various Curing Methods and Surface Treatments.

To compare the bond strengths of three types of permanent silicone and acrylic resin soft liners to the denture-base acrylic resin by employing both synchronous and asynchronous processing methods and different surface treatments. A total of 198 cylindrical samples were fabricated from denture-base acrylic resin and a 3-mm soft liner. Surface treatments of the samples were classified into five groups (n = 33 each): no treatment (control); erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser; grit-blasting with 150-μm particles; monomer application; and phosphoric acid application. In addition, synchronous processing (n = 33) of the acrylic resin denture base and the soft liner was performed. Each group was divided into three subgroups (n = 11 each) based on the type of soft liner: Group M (Molloplast-B [silicone]), Group P (PermaFlex [silicone]), and Group A (AcroSoft [acrylic resin]). The samples were processed and thermocycled for 5,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C, and the tensile strength test was then performed. The maximum tensile strength to failure and the type of failure were recorded, and Dunn statistical analysis and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparison of the groups. The surface treatments were assessed using scanning electron microscopy. Irrespective of the method of processing or surface treatment, Group A had a significantly higher bond strength (8.1 ± 1.1 MPa) than the other two soft liners (Group M: 1.9 ± 0.3 MPa, Group P: 1.1 ± 0.2 MPa; P < .001). Moreover, in Group A, the synchronous processing method produced a significantly higher tensile strength (P < .001), while in Group P (P = .112) and Group M (P = .993), synchronous processing had no significant effect on bond strength. Bond strength after surface treatment in Group M was lowest after grit blasting (0.7 ± 0.2 MPa) and highest after monomer application (3.1 ± 0.5 MPa) (P < .001). The same was observed for Group P in grit blasting (0.5 ± 0.2 MPa) and monomer application (2.1 ± 0.3 MPa) (P < .001). For Group A, grit blasting (4.8 ± 0.7 MPa) was also the lowest and the monomer application (8.1 ± 0.8 MPa) the highest ± (P < .001), while the bond strength resulting from the synchronous processing method was higher than that of the other methods (14.7 ± 2.1 MPa). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the acrylic resin soft liner showed the best bond strength. In all types of soft liners, surface treatment with the monomer resulted in higher bond strengths. Synchronous processing exhibited a significantly higher bond strength for the acrylic resin soft liner, but not for the silicone soft liners.

Evaluation and comparison of tensile bond strength of addition silicone impression material with different tray adhesives

Statement of Problem: Very few studies have been conducted on the comparative evaluation of bond strength of elastomeric impression material to custom tray material using two different universal adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: A special mold was made for the fabrications of 24 samples of tray resin materials. They were divided into two main groups of 12. Perforations followed by adhesive application were done according to the grouping of samples. Polyvinyl siloxane material (medium body) was placed over the samples. A universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min was used to determine the tensile bond strength of tray resin samples to medium body impression material by using different universal adhesives. Based on these values, Student's “t” test, group statistics, and ANOVA test were applied. Results: By using analysis of variance, there was no significant difference between the strength of bonding of tray resin material and medium body addition silicone by different adhesive systems. Conclusion: It was concluded that Medicept Universal tray adhesive system is as good as 3M™ universal tray adhesive system to achieve a good bond between tray resin and medium body addition silicone.

Effect of denture cleansing agents on tensile and shear bond strengths of soft liners to acrylic denture base.

Background. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of Corega and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite cleansing agents on the shear and tensile bond strengths of GC soft liner to denture base. Methods. A total of 144 samples (72 samples for tensile and 72 for shear bond strength evaluations) were prepared. The samples in each group were subdivided into three subgroups in terms of the cleansing agent used (2.5% sodium hypochlorite, Corega and distilled water [control group]). All the samples were stored in distilled water, during which each sample was immersed for 15 minutes daily in sodium hypochlorite or Corega solutions. After 20 days the tensile and shear bond strengths were determined using a universal testing machine. In addition, a stereomicroscope was used to evaluate fracture modes. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, using SPSS 16. Results. The results of post hoc Tukey tests showed significant differences in the mean tensile and shear bond strength values between the sodium hypochlorite group with Corega and control groups (P=0.001 for comparison of tensile bond strengths between the sodium hypochlorite and control groups, and P<0.001 for the comparison of tensile bond strengths between the sodium hypochlorite and Corega groups and the shear bond strengths between the sodium hypochlorite and Corega groups, and sodium hypochlorite and control groups).The majority of failures were cohesive in the control and Corega groups and cohesive/adhesive in the sodium hypochlorite group. Conclusion. Immersion of soft liners in Corega will result in longevity of soft liners compared to immersion in sodium hypochlorite solution and sodium hypochlorite solution significantly decreased the tensile and shear bond strengths compared to the control and Corega groups.

Estimation and comparison of tensile bond strengths at resin-dentin interface of total-etch and self-etch bonding systems

Objective: To estimate and compare the Tensile Bond Strengths and to observe the resindentin interface of total-etch and self-etch bonding systems to dentin of primary and permanent molar teeth.&#x0D; Method: Thirty non-carious exfoliated primary human molars and thirty extracted permanent molars were randomly assigned to four groups according to adhesives used. The specimens were subjected to tensile bond strength (TBS) testing at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Mean TBS was statistically analyzed with student ‘t’ test. Interfacial morphologies were analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).&#x0D; Result: Etch-and-rinse adhesive Adper Single Bond 2 Total Etch® yielded high bond strength when applied to both primary and permanent dentine. For the one-step Adper Easy One® self-etching adhesive, the bond strength was relatively low regardless of the dentine type. SEM interfacial analysis revealed funnel shaped resin tags and a rough hybrid layer in specimens subjected to total etch system and cylindrical shaped and a smooth hybrid layer in specimens subjected to self etch system in both primary and permanent teeth. &#x0D; Conclusion: The total-etch systems provide better adhesion to primary and permanent tooth dentine. The self etch systems though convenient to use, do not match the bond strengths of conventional total etch systems. Also, it can be concluded that both adhesives show weaker bond strengths to primary tooth dentin.&#x0D;

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Elastomeric Impression Material to Different Tray Materials in Different Surface Conditions: An in vitro Study

Optimum bond between elastomeric material and custom tray decides accuracy and success of any prosthesis. Specimens of specific dimensions were made of DPI pink acrylic and MP SAI green tray acrylic resin and subjected to different surface treatments, namely sand papering, sandblasting and grooving; whereas control kept smooth. The 3M VPS adhesive was then applied, allowed to dry and 3M ESPE Express TM material then manipulated and allowed to set. All the study specimens were evaluated on Instron tensile testing machine for bond strength of tray adhesive between (i) elastomeric and different custom tray materials; and (ii) elastomeric and different surface conditions of trays. The sandpapered specimens of DPI acrylic resin were analyzed using ANOVA, one way classification Snedector’s ‘F’ test Newman- Keul test and showed least strength in the range 5.84 to 6.06 kg/cm 2 and sandblasted MP SAI resin specimens showed highest strength in the range 7 to 7.72 kg/cm 2 . Also

Comparison of tensile bond strengths of four one-bottle self-etching adhesive systems with Er:YAG laser-irradiated dentin

This study aimed to investigate the interaction of current one-bottle self-etching adhesives and Er:YAG laser with dentin using a tensile bond strength (TBS) test and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in vitro. Two hundred and thirteen dentin discs were randomly distributed to the Control Group using bur cutting and to the Laser Group using an Er:YAG laser (200mJ, VSP, 20Hz). The following adhesives were investigated: one two-step total-etch adhesive [Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply)] and four one-step self-etch adhesives [G-Bond plus (GC), XENO V (Dentsply), iBond Self Etch (Heraeus) and Adper Easy One (3M ESPE)]. Samples were restored with composite resin, and after 24-hour storage in distilled water, subjected to the TBS test. For morphological analysis, 12 dentin specimens were prepared for SEM. No significant differences were found between the control group and laser group (p=0.899); dentin subjected to Prime & Bond NT, XENOV and Adper Easy One produced higher TBS. In conclusion, this study indicates that Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin can perform as well as bur on TBS, and some of the one-step one-bottle adhesives are comparable to the total-etch adhesives in TBS on dentin.

Comparison of tensile bond strength of resilient soft liners to denture base resins

Purpose of the study: To determine the tensile bond strength of three commercially available soft liners to a polymethyl methacrylate denture base resin, to help the clinicians to select the liner for their patients, and to provide a comparative database when new materials are introduced. Basic procedures: In this study, tensile bond test was considered a good method of investigating and comparing the bond strength of three resilient lining materials, because it gives information on the strength of the bond in comparison to the tensile strength of the material. Main findings: The tensile bond strength of SuperSoft (acrylic-based liner) was better compared to Molloplast B (silicone-based liner) and Mucopren (silicone-based liner). Principle conclusion: The tensile test used in this study was effective in evaluating and comparing the tensile bond strength of the three liners. Factors such as processing methods, water sorption, bonding agents, changes in compliance, changes in the bond strength in the harsh oral environment, and chemistry of the material need further investigations to increase the serviceable life of the material.

An in vitro comparison of tensile bond strengths of noble and base metal alloys to enamel

Statement of problem Many different surface treatments have been used to increase the bond strength of noble and base metal alloys to enamel, but only a few have been studied. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the tensile bond strength of a tin-plated noble alloy, an Alloy Primer–treated noble alloy, and an airborne particle–abraded base metal alloy, all bonded to enamel with a phosphate-methacrylate resin luting agent. Material and methods Seventy noncarious molar teeth were extracted, cleaned, and embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin with the buccal surface of the teeth exposed. Seventy wax patterns (4-mm diameter × 2-mm thickness) were waxed, invested, and cast—50 with a noble alloy (Argedent 52) and 20 with a base metal alloy (Argeloy N.P.). Twenty of the noble alloy specimens were tin-plated (TP), 20 noble alloy specimens were treated with Alloy Primer (AP), and 20 base metal alloy specimens were airborne particle abraded (AA). All specimens were luted with a phosphate-methacrylate resin luting agent (Panavia F) and stored in 100% humidity at 37°C, half for 24 hours and half for 7 days. Ten noble alloy specimens were tin-plated and stored in water for 48 hours (aged) before cementation and then stored in water for 24 hours after cementation. These specimens were used to test whether there is an advantage to aging the tin-plated surface in water before cementation. All specimens were thermocycled (5° to 55°C) for 500 cycles and then tested for tensile bond strength (TBS), measured in MPa, with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min. Various castings (n=6 per test group) were randomly selected from each group and inspected under a scanning electronic microscope to determine mode of failure. The mean values and standard deviations of all specimens were calculated for each group. A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, and multiple pairwise comparisons were then completed with post hoc Tukey test (α=.05). Results The TBS of the tin-plated noble alloy specimens bonded to enamel (24 hours: 9.33 ± 1.31 MPa; 7 days: 11.65 ± 1.55 MPa) was significantly greater than the Alloy Primer noble alloy specimens (24 hours: 6.11 ± 1.01 MPa; 7 days: 5.45 ± 1.22 MPa) ( P < .001). The Alloy Primer noble alloy group showed the lowest TBS compared with the tin-plated noble alloy and airborne particle–abraded base metal alloy group (24 hours: 10.61 ± 1.41 MPa; 7 days: 6.94 ± 1.40 MPa). The tin-plated noble alloy specimens showed greater TBS after storage for 7 days in distilled water compared with storage for 24 hours (24 hours: 9.33 ± 1.31 MPa; 7 days: 11.65 ± 1.55 MPa). Aging the tin-plated noble alloy for 48 hours in 37°C (9.17 ± 1.68 MPa) prior to cementation did not increase the TBS to enamel. The airborne particle–abraded base metal alloy showed significantly lower TBS at the 7-day storage time compared to the 24-hour storage time (24 hours: 10.61 ± 1.41 MPa; 7 days: 6.94 ± 1.40 MPa) ( P < .001). SEM examination of the debonded metal and enamel surfaces showed mixed (adhesive and cohesive) failures for all groups. Conclusion Tin-plating a noble alloy produced the highest bond strength to enamel. Storing the tin-plated noble alloy in 37°C distilled water for 48 hours before cementation did not result in a change in TBS. Using an Alloy Primer with a noble alloy resulted in statistically significant lower TBS than tin-plating.