J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

DOI 10.1007/s10853-010-5149-1

The effect of plasma polymer coating using atmospheric-pressure

glow discharge on the shear bond strength of composite resin
to ceramic
Byeong-Hoon Cho Geum-Jun Han
Kyu-Hwan Oh Sung-No Chung Bae-Hyeock Chun

Received: 28 September 2010 / Accepted: 30 November 2010 / Published online: 29 December 2010
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract If plasma technology can come out of the

vacuum chamber and plasma can be extruded through a
small pencil-type torch, it can be applied widely to dental
practices. For this study, we designed a small pencil-type
non-thermal atmospheric-pressure glow discharge plasma
torch. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect
of plasma polymer coating on the adhesion of composite
resin to feldspathic porcelain. The effect of plasma polymer coating was evaluated using shear bond strength (SBS)
test. Contact angle measurements and fracture mode analysis were also performed. Among the groups treated with
plasma polymer coating, the SBS of the adhesive (Adper
Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE) to the ceramic
surface pre-treated sequentially with water plasma and
triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) plasma in
helium gas was significantly higher than that of the adhesive to the untreated surface (p \ 0.05). In this group, the
predominant fracture mode was mixed fracture, where
small cohesively fractured fragments of ceramic were
dispersed on the adhesively fractured flat adhesive surface.
However, the SBS values of all the plasma polymer-coated
groups were lower than those obtained through a routine
porcelain bonding procedure with HF acid and silane
B.-H. Cho
G.-J. Han
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Seoul National
University School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute,
Seoul 110-749, Korea
K.-H. Oh
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Seoul
National University, Seoul 151-744, Korea
S.-N. Chung
B.-H. Chun (&)
N.B.T. LTD., 345-34, Gasan-Dong, GeumCheon-Gu,
Seoul 153-802, Korea
e-mail: sonata307@hanmail.net

coupling agent (p \ 0.05). The non-thermal atmosphericpressure plasma polymer coating technique was found to
have a potential promoting adhesion to dental materials.

Introduction
Plasma is recognized as a fourth state of matter together
with gases, liquids, and solids [1]. More or less ionized gas
in plasma consists of electrons, ions, and neutral components in fundamental and excited states [2, 3]. Plasmas are
electrically neutral, but they contain free charge carriers
and are electrically conductive and chemically active. They
are classified as either cold or thermal, depending on their
activation method and working power [2]. Due to the wide
range of temperatures they emit, plasma technology has
been used for various applications such as surface treatments and coatings, waste destruction, gas treatments,
chemical synthesis, machining, and high-precision mass
spectrometric analysis by plasma-source [2, 47]. Thermal
plasmas, especially arc plasma, have been extensively
industrialized [2]. In the dental field, non-thermal plasmas
have been studied for the purposes of modifying titanium
implant surfaces [8, 9], improving mechanical properties of
fiber-reinforced acrylic resin materials [10], and increasing
bond strength between fiber posts and core resin [11] and
between composite luting agents and ceramics [12]. These
non-thermal plasmas use radio frequency (RF) sources with
a high power supply in a vacuum chamber.
Dental bonding deals with bondings to various substrates, ranging from well-achieved bondings to enamel
and ceramics to relatively weak ones to dentin, polymers,
and metals. Ceramic bonding is quite reliable when the
surface of the feldspathic porcelain is treated with both
hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching and silane coupling agent

123

2756

coating [13], but dentin bonding has complicated problems

due to its low bond strength and long-term hydrolytic bond
degradation [14]. The excellent adhesion imparted by the
deposition mechanism of a plasma polymer to a substrate
can be utilized to improve the adhesion characteristics of
other materials [15]. Plasma polymers have been suggested
to be adhesion promoters for any kind of substrate materials and to provide water resistivity of adhesion [15].
Therefore, non-thermal atmospheric-pressure glow discharge (AGD) plasmas may be used to improve the adhesion effectiveness and durability between various
restoratives and tooth substrates. However, only a few
studies have attempted to use the non-thermal AGD plasma
for dental applications such as cavity preparation and
bleaching [3, 16]. In our laboratory, a small pencil-type
plasma torch that can be used to apply plasma or plasma
polymers directly to teeth or restoratives in a patients
mouth and to modify the surfaces of restoratives or
implants at chair-side was designed.
In this study, among various dental adherents, feldspathic porcelain was chosen to evaluate the effectiveness
Fig. 1 a Schematic illustration
of the non-thermal atmospheric
glow discharge (AGD) plasma
equipment used in this study.
b Plasma flame was applied to
the sample on a stand through a
pencil-type plasma torch which
was located 0.5 cm above the
sample surface

123

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

of plasma polymer coating on adhesion, due to its consistent surface structure, composition, and reliable reports on
its bond strength [13, 17]. We evaluated the hypothesis that
the plasma polymer coating procedure would promote
adhesion by plasma polymer deposition and increase the
bond strength of composite resin to ceramic. For the purpose, the effect of plasma adhesion on the bond strength of
composite resin to ceramic was evaluated. The plasmacoated ceramic surfaces were characterized using contact
angle measurements, and the fractured surfaces were
evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and
energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).

Materials and methods

The AGD plasma reactor shown in Fig. 1a is composed of
three parts: a mass flow system, a plasma torch, and a
reactor for plasma polymer deposition. The pencil-type
plasma torch is composed of an outer ceramic tube (4 mm
in inner diameter) wrapped with a ground electrode and an

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

2757

inner ceramic needle tube (2 mm in diameter) containing a

hot metal rod electrode that passes through the center of the
outer tube. Helium (He) was delivered into the tube at a
flow rate of 2 L/min as a carrier gas, carrying vaporized
distilled water (DW) for cleaning and hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO) or triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) for plasma polymerization, after passing through a
glass bubbler. Between the metal rod electrode and the
ground electrode connected around the tip of the ceramic
tube, a radio frequency (RF) voltage of 2 kV was applied at
15 kHz. For standardization, the flow rate of the vaporized
water and monomers was controlled at a rate of 50 standard
cubic centimeters (sccms) using a mass flow controller
(FC7700C, Aera Japan, Hachioji, Japan). The distance
between the surface of the porcelain sample and the tip of
the plasma torch could be adjusted according to the
deposition rate of the plasma polymer and the cleaning
effects.
Fifty pressed CAD/CAM ceramic blocks (8 9 10 9
15 mm) of feldspathic porcelain (VITABlOCS Mark II for
CEREC/inLab, 2M2C I10, Lot No. 14800; Vita Zahfabrik,
Bad Sackingen, Germany) were embedded in acrylic molds
with self-curing acrylic resin. In order to create uniform
surface roughness and parallel surface geometry for shear
loading, the top surfaces of the ceramic blocks were polished with 500 grit silicon carbide abrasive paper (Buehler
Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under running water using an
automatic polishing machine (Rotopol-V; Struers Ltd,
Glasgow G60 5EU, UK). The samples were stored in a
chamber of 100% relative humidity at room temperature
from the beginning of the experiment until the shear bond
strength (SBS) test [7, 12].
Prepared ceramic blocks were randomly divided into
five groups (Table 1). In group 1, the control group, the
Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP, Lot No. 9RL;
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) adhesive was applied to the
polished surfaces of ceramic blocks with no treatment. The

adhesive was light-cured for 20 s using a halogen light

source (VIP, light intensity 600 mW/cm2; Bisco Inc,
Schaumburg, IL, USA). In the experimental groups, the
ceramic specimen was placed on a stand in an atmosphericpressure acrylic chamber which had a passive outlet for He
gas. The stand was used to position the polished top surface
of the specimen 0.5 cm below the tip of the plasma torch
(Fig. 1b). In group 2, the polished ceramic surface was
exposed to non-thermal AGD plasma carrying vaporized
TEGDMA in helium gas. The SBMP adhesive was
immediately applied to the plasma polymer-coated surface
and light-cured for 20 s. In group 3, an additional step of
plasma surface treatment with vaporized DW in helium gas
was applied to clean the adherent surface. After the
cleaning step, the plasma polymer coating step with
vaporized TEGDMA in helium gas with consecutive
adhesive application and light-curing were completed, as in
group 2. In group 4, HMDSO was additionally used as a
precursor monomer since the plasma polymer from
HMDSO had siloxane and silane groups for bonding with
ceramic. The procedures were performed sequentially in
the order of plasma cleaning with water, plasma polymer
coating with HMDSO, plasma polymer coating with
TEGDMA, adhesive application, and adhesive light-curing
for 20 s. In group 5, the polished surfaces of the ceramic
blocks were treated according to a routine clinical protocol
for bonding feldspathic porcelain, consisting of surface
etching with 4% buffered hydrofluoric acid gel (HF, Porcelain Etchant, Lot No. 0800003209; Bisco Inc) for 4 min,
washing, drying with compressed air from a three-way
syringe, coating the surface with a silane coupling agent
(Monobond-S, Lot No. M08100; Ivoclar Vivadent AG,
Liechtenstein), drying, adhesive application, and lightcuring for 20 s.
A metal iris, a stainless steel coin (8 mm in diameter and
1.5 mm in height) with a concentric hole (3 mm in diameter) in the center, was used as a mold for packing

Table 1 Experimental groups and procedures used in this study

Groups

Surface treatment procedures Remarks

Group 1 g

Untreated, negative control group

Group 2 c, g

Plasma polymer coating with TEGDMA

Group 3 a, c, g

Plasma surface cleaning and plasma polymer coating with TEGDMA

Group 4 a, b, c, g

Plasma surface cleaning and plasma polymer coating with HMDSO and TEGDMA, consecutively

Group 5 d, e, f, g

Hydrofluoric acid etching and silane application, routine bonding procedure for feldspathic porcelain

a, plasma surface treatment with vaporized DW in helium gas; b, plasma polymer coating with vaporized HMDSO in helium gas; c, plasma
polymer coating with vaporized TEGDMA in helium gas; d, etching with 4% buffered hydrofluoric acid gel for 4 min; e, washing and drying
with compressed air from a three-way syringe; f, silane coupling agent coating and drying with compressed air from a three-way syringe; g,
sequential bonding procedures after surface treatment of the polished surfaces of ceramic blocks, including the immediate coating of the Adper
Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (3M ESPE) adhesive, light-curing for 20 s, composite packing into the inner hole of the iris on the specimen surface,
and light-curing for 40 s
TEGDMA triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; HMDSO hexamethyldisiloxane

123

2758

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

Table 2 Measurements of water contact angles from various ceramic surfaces prepared according to the plasma surface treatment protocols used
in this study
Groups

Surface treatments

Contact angle ()

Polished ceramic surface

12.1 1.7

Polishing/water cleaning

a, b

Less than 5

Polishing/water cleaning/TEGDMA plasma coating

a, b, c

Less than 5

Polishing/TEGDMA plasma coating

a, c

Less than 5

Polishing/water cleaning/HMDSO plasma coating

a, b, d

85.3 8.5

Polishing/water cleaning/HMDSO plasma coating/TEGDMA plasma coating

a, b, d, c

30.8 2.6

Polishing/water cleaning/TEGDMA plasma coating/adhesive light-curing (OIL)

a, b, c, e

45.2 3.5

Surface treatments of each group were performed in a sequential manner designated with the following abbreviations: a, polishing with #500 SiC
paper; b, plasma surface cleaning with vaporized water in helium gas; c, plasma polymer coating with vaporized TEGDMA in helium gas; d,
plasma polymer coating with vaporized HMDSO in helium gas; e, adhesive coating and light-curing for 20 s
OIL, oxygen-inhibited layer, the contact angle of the oxygen-inhibited layer remaining on the cured adhesive was measured to approximate the
contact angle measurement of the uncured adhesive itself
TEGDMA triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; HMDSO hexamethyldisiloxane

composite [18]. The iris was coated with Teflon to prevent

it from adhering to the cured adhesive of the ceramic
surface. The iris was pressed against the treated ceramic
surface, and a composite resin (Filtek Z-250, A3 shade, Lot
No. N111413; 3M ESPE) was filled into the hole. It was
then light-cured for 40 s. All the specimens were stored in
a humid chamber at room temperature (22 C) for 24 h
before testing.
Shear bond strength was measured at a crosshead speed
of 1.0 mm/min using a universal testing machine (UTM,
LF Plus; Lloyd Instruments LTD, Fareham Hampshire,
UK). After debonding, fracture analysis was performed
using a stereomicroscope (SZ40, Olympus Corp, Tokyo,
Japan), and photographs of both sides of the fracture surfaces were taken. The failure modes were classified as
adhesive fracture (A), fracture between the polished ceramic surface and the cured adhesive layer; mixed fracture
(M), fracture meandering from the adhesive interface to the
ceramic surface, where as a result, small fragments of
ceramic were observed on the adhesively fractured flat
adhesive surface; or cohesive fracture of ceramic (C), an
oblique fracture of the ceramic adherend. The microscopic
images at various magnifications and constituting elements
of the fractured surfaces in the selected debonded specimens from each group were evaluated using a field-emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM, S-4700,
HITACHI high technologies Co, Tokyo, Japan) operating
at 15 kV and an embedded energy dispersive spectrometer
(EDS, EX-220, Horiba, Kyoto, Japan).
In order to verify the effects of plasma cleaning with
DW and plasma polymer coating with HMDSO or TEGDMA, a contact angle meter (Phoenix 150; Surface Electro
Optics, Seoul, Korea) was used to measure the water
contact angles on a series of ceramic surfaces, such as
those polished with #500 SiC paper, those plasma-treated

123

with water after polishing, those plasma polymer coated

with TEGDMA on the polished and water plasma-treated
surface, those plasma polymer coated with TEGDMA on
the polished surface, those plasma polymer coated with
HMDSO on the polished and water plasma-treated surface,
those plasma polymer coated with TEGDMA on the polished, water plasma-treated, and HMDSO plasma-coated
surface, and those surfaces on which the adhesive was
applied and cured after plasma treatment (Table 2). By
gently dropping a deionized water droplet onto the treated
surface using a micro-syringe, the static contact angle was
automatically obtained from the photo image collected by
the embedded software.
The data obtained from the SBS test were analyzed
statistically using a KruskalWallis non-parametric test,
and post hoc multiple comparison tests were also conducted with a Dunnett test at a 5% level of significance.
Failure mode data were analyzed using a Chi-square test.

Results
Table 3 shows the SBSs of composite resin to variously
treated surfaces of feldspathic porcelain blocks. Compared
to the SBS of the adhesive of SBMP to untreated ceramic
surfaces (group 1), the SBS value of the adhesive to the
ceramic surface exposed to non-thermal AGD plasma
carrying vaporized TEGDMA (group 2) increased slightly,
but the difference was not statistically significant. However, when the plasma polymer coating with vaporized
TEGDMA was performed after pre-treatment of the
adherent surface with plasma carrying vaporized DW
(group 3), the SBS of the adhesive was significantly higher
than both those to the untreated surface (group 1) and to the
surface coated only with TEGDMA (group 2, p \ 0.05).

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

2759

Table 3 Shear bond strength (SBS) of the composite resin to various

plasma-treated surfaces of feldspathic porcelain and the distribution
of fracture modes observed from the fractures due to shear load
Groups
(abbreviation)

SBS

Group 1 (PUT)

11.5 2.3a

Group 2 (T)

14.8 3.7a

Group 3 (WT)

20.0 3.9b

Group 4 (WHT)

14.7 4.0ab 10

Group 5 (FS)

31.0 6.0c

10

Fracture modes
Adhesive Mixed Ceramic
cohesive

Fracture modes: adhesive fracture, fracture between the polished

ceramic surface and the cured adhesive layer; mixed fracture, fracture
meandering from the adhesive interface to the ceramic surface, where,
as a result, a small fragment of ceramic was observed on the adhesive
surface covering the fractured bottom surface of the composite resin
in the iris; cohesive fracture of ceramic, oblique fracture of the
ceramic adherend
PUT untreated except polishing; T, TEGDMA plasma coating after
polishing; WT, after polishing, sequential DW plasma treatment, and
TEGDMA plasma coating; WHT, after polishing, sequential DW
plasma treatment, and plasma polymer coating with HMDSO and
TEGDMA; FS, hydrofluoric acid etching and silane coupling agent
coating

Values are means standard deviations in MPa, and sample

numbers are 10

The same superscript represents no statistically significant difference (p [ 0.05)

The SBS value was still lower than the bond strength to the
ceramic surface etched with HF acid and consecutively
coated with silane coupling agent (group 5, p \ 0.05), a
routine bonding procedure for feldspathic porcelain in
dental clinics. Sequential plasma polymer coatings with
HMDSO and TEGDMA after plasma cleaning with water
(group 4) also failed to obtain significantly different SBS
values from those of the untreated control group (group 1).
In group 1, the fractures caused by shear loading mostly
occurred at the interface between the polished ceramic
surface and the cured adhesive layer (adhesive fractures,
Fig. 2a and Table 3). With plasma polymer coating (group
2), small cohesively fractured fragments of ceramic were
observed on the adhesively fractured flat adhesive surface
after shear fracture (mixed fractures, Fig. 2b). When
plasma surface cleaning with vaporized DW was performed additionally before plasma polymer coating with
TEGDMA (group 3), the incidence of mixed fractures
increased significantly (Chi-square test, p \ 0.05). The
small fragments observed on the adhesive surface at the
bottom of the iris were found to be ceramic after line
scanning with EDS (Fig. 3). In group 4, all of the fractures
that occurred were adhesive. In group 5, all specimens

Fig. 2 The fractured surfaces obtained after the shear bond strength
test. a In group 1, the fractured surfaces due to shear loading appeared
flat and shiny, like the original polished surfaces of the ceramic
blocks. The fracture occurred at the interface between the polished
ceramic surface and the cured adhesive layer (Adhesive fracture). b In
group 2 with the plasma polymer coating, small fragments of ceramic
were occasionally observed on the adhesive surface covering the
fractured bottom surface of the composite resin in the iris (Mixed
fracture). When the plasma surface treatment with DW was
additionally performed before plasma polymer coating with TEGDMA (group 3), the incidence of mixed fracture increased. c In group
4, cohesive fracture of ceramic was observed at the opposite side of
the loading plunger in all specimens

123

2760

showed cohesive fractures of the ceramic at the opposite

side of the loading plunger (Fig. 2c). From the EDS line
scanning of fragments on the adhesively fractured flat
adhesive surface at the bottom of an iris from group 3
(Fig. 3), the composing elements of ceramic such as Si and
Al were detected (asterisk), although they were not
detected on the flat smooth surface.
The contact angle measurement of the ceramic specimens was 12.1 1.7 when the surface was tested in an
initial polished state. When the polished surface was
altered through water plasma cleaning or TEGDMA
plasma coating, the contact angle decreased to less than 5.
However, when the plasma polymer coating was performed
with hydrophobic HMDSO, the contact angle increased to
85.3 8.5, even though it was applied on the hydrophilic surface obtained via water plasma cleaning. Once the
surface was coated with HMDSO and when hydrophilic
TEGDMA was applied to the hydrophobic surface obtained
through HMDSO treatment, the contact angle decreased
(30.8 2.6) but could not be lowered to the value of the
TEGDMA-coated surface. Compared to the contact angle
of the water droplet on the uncured oxygen-inhibited layer
of the adhesive (45.2 3.5), the polished surface or the
various plasma-treated surfaces used in this study were
more hydrophilic, except for the HMDSO plasma-treated
surface.

Discussion
In order to apply plasma technology to various fields of
clinical dental practice, the equipment needs to come out of
the vacuum chamber and to have a small handpiece shape.
Outside the vacuum chamber, when the pressure or feeding
power density is low, the plasma temperature (or gas
temperature) is fixed by a heavy particle temperature due to
the low density of excited atoms and the huge mass difference between electrons and heavy particles [2]. Even
though they are excited or ionized, the inelastic collisions
between electrons and heavy particles do not raise the
temperature of the heavy particles [2]. To expose the
materials to plasma without a vacuum system, the RF
frequency of the steady-state uniform glow discharge at
atmospheric-pressure must be in the appropriate range. If
the RF frequency is too low, the discharge will not be
initiated, and if it is too high, the plasma will form a filamentary discharge between the electrode plates or will be
transformed to an arc discharge [19]. The resulting low
temperature and chemically active species can be applied
to tooth substrates and dental materials in the oral cavity
for various purposes. Although many kinds of atmospheric
plasma jets that function in open air have been introduced,
there have been few reports on the application of

123

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

atmospheric plasma technology in dental practice [3, 16].

In this study, we applied new innovative non-thermal AGD
equipment to ceramic bonding.
In the clinic, feldspathic porcelain restorations are
bonded according to a routine protocol using hydrofluoric
acid etching and silane coupling agent coating such as
ceramic primer [13]. In this study, the plasma polymer
coating was evaluated as a chemical mediator for ceramic
bonding and as an effective substitute for HF etching and
silane coupling agent coating. In the SBS test, although the
bond strength obtained after plasma polymer coating with
only TEGDMA (group 2) failed to show a statistical difference from the bond strength obtained from the polished
surface (group 1, negative control group), the bond strength
obtained after sequential plasma surface cleaning with DW
and plasma polymer coating with TEGDMA (group 3) was
significantly greater than that of the negative control group
(group 1). The results showed that the non-thermal AGD
plasma polymer coating technique could contribute to the
enhancement of ceramic bonding with conventional dental
adhesives. Additional surface treatment with water plasma
seemed to have the effect of surface activation due to the
ionized OH radicals or at least the effect of cleaning,
which was similar to the effect of the oxygen plasma used
to increase the hydrophilicity under vacuum conditions [2,
12, 15, 20]. It was assumed that the OH radicals created a
very hydrophilic surface. The values of groups 2, 3, and 4
were comparable to the results obtained by Derand et al.
(15.2 2.6 MPa in SBS) in a reactor using plasma deposition consisting of the activation of substrate surfaces with
oxygen, RF plasma deposition with HMDSO, and additional activation of the polymer with oxygen [12]. Polar
liquids, such as ethanol or methanol, can also be good
candidates for surface modification to graft hydroxyl group
(OH) [21]. Further study using ethanol or methanol
plasma is needed to modify the hydrophilicity of the substrate surface.
This study also evaluated the effect of HMDSO deposition on ceramics because, in many studies on plasma
adhesion performed in a vacuum chamber, HMDSO was
used as a precursor monomer to coat a thin film onto
substrates [12, 22]. Plasma polymer coating with HMDSO
has been proven to be an effective primer coating for
adhesion promotion because SiO bonds are known to
form covalent bonds with metal and ceramic, and oxygen
has been widely used as a carrier gas in plasma surface
treatment [12, 20, 22]. Radicals like SiO, SiC, SiOSi,
or SiCH(x) (x can be 2, 3, or 4), dissociated from HMDSO
molecules by high energy electrons, can react with surface
metal, metal oxide, or metal hydrate to form metallic-silane,
metallic-siloxane, organo-metallic-silane, or organo-metallic-siloxane. MSi or MOSi is known to create very
stable chemical bonds [8, 23]. However, an additional

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

2761

Fig. 3 a SEM image of the

fractured surface at the bottom
of the composite resin in the iris
after the shear bond strength
test. Small fragments (asterisk)
observed on the flat fractured
surface were confirmed as
ceramic according to EDS line
scanning; b and c, from EDS
line scanning, elements of
ceramic, such as Si and Al, were
detected in the fragments, but
not on the flat smooth surface,
demonstrating that there was an
island of ceramic on the flat
cured bonding layer which
masked the underlying
composite resin

123

2762

HMDSO plasma polymer coating (group 4) applied before

TEGDMA plasma coating failed to show a significant difference in SBS from that of the negative control (group 1).
Although radicals like SiO, SiC, SiOSi, or SiCH(x)
(x can be 2, 3, or 4) that dissociated from the HMDSO
molecule were expected to promote the adhesion between
the ceramic primed by the monomer and the overlying
adhesive, all of the specimens in group 4 showed adhesive
fractures (Table 3). It seemed that hydrophilic adhesive
failed to adequately wet the hydrophobic surface of the
plasma polymer of HMDSO.
Group 5, which consisted of specimens bonded with HF
etching and silane coupling agent coating, showed significantly higher bond strength than the other groups, and all
specimens exhibited cohesive fractures in the ceramic
(Fig. 2c). Among the groups in which specimens were
treated with plasma polymer coating, only group 3 showed
a significantly higher bond strength (KruskalWallis test,
p \ 0.05) and significantly more mixed fractures (Chisquare test, p \ 0.05, Table 3 and Figs. 2b and 3) than did
the negative control group. At the fractured bottom surface
of the composite resin in the iris, the specimens showing
mixed fractures had small fragments of ceramic on the flat
adhesive layer that resulted from the adhesive fracture
between the polished surface of the ceramic and the
adhesive layer (Fig. 3). These fragments demonstrated that
there was an island of cohesively fractured ceramic fragments on the flat cured adhesive layer and that the element
Si, included in the composite resin as filler, was masked by
the adhesive layer. Although it was not clear whether the
plasma-coated polymer was on the polished ceramic surface or on the composite resin side due to its extremely thin
thickness, the adhesive layer must have been attached to
the composite resin side. The small fragments observed
especially at the point at which the plasma flame was
directly applied were confirmed as ceramic according to an
EDS scan. Even though the effective area of the flame was
small, the fragment of ceramic cohesive fracture showed
that the non-thermal AGD plasma polymer coating technique could contribute to enhance the ceramic bonding of
conventional dental adhesives.
The water contact angle of the HMDSO plasma polymer
coating (85.3 8.5) was higher than that of the TEGDMA plasma polymer coating (less than 5o). During the
pilot study, it was also found that, because the adhesive
(SBMP adhesive) aggregated on the HMDSO plasmacoated surface, the surface could not be coated and failed to
obtain good bond strength due to the poor wetting. In the
other conditions of contact angle measurement, the values
of the substrate surfaces were lower than those of the
adhesive (45.2 3.5, Table 2). Although the exact level
of fracture could not be differentiated, the relatively low
bond strength and high number of adhesive fractures in

123

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

group 4 were assumed to be attributed to the large difference in the hydrophobicity between HMDSO and TEGDMA. Therefore, the hydrophilicity of the plasma
polymer-coated substrate surface was necessary to facilitate the wetting of the adhesive. In this study, we chose
TEGDMA as the precursor monomer, a constituent of
dental adhesives which is more hydrophilic than other
adhesive ingredients such as Bis-GMA and which can be
vaporized due to its high volatility. In this study, helium
gas was used as the carrier gas because of its inertness and
ability to stabilize a glow discharge outside of a vacuum
chamber [2]. Although plasma treatments of oxygen, air,
nitrogen, and argon gases increased wettability [24], oxygen is an electron-negative gas that requires a much higher
breakdown voltage to generate plasma. Argon also requires
high breakdown voltage. As a result, the plasma temperature was elevated to the level at which the plasma could not
be applied to vital teeth. Moreover, because oxygen can
also be involved in co-polymerization with monomer gas, it
was difficult to prepare a stable AGD and to create a
plasma polymer with proper characteristics.

Conclusions
In this study, the effect of plasma polymer coating on bond
strength was not sufficient to replace the contemporary
protocol involving HF etching and silane coupling agent
coating. However, we found that the non-thermal AGD
plasma polymer coating technique could contribute to
enhance the ceramic bonding of conventional dental
adhesives. The non-thermal atmospheric-pressure plasma
polymer coating technique was found to have a potential
promoting adhesion to dental materials.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Korea
Research Foundation (KRF) grant funded by the Korean government
(MEST, No. 2009-0070771).

References
1. dAgostino R, Favia P, Oehr C, Wertheimer MR (2005) Plasma
Process Polym 2:7
2. Tendero C, Tixier C, Tristant P, Desmaison J, Leprince P (2006)
Spectrochim Acta B 61:2
3. Yasuda H (1985) Plasma polymerization. Academic Press, New
York
4. Chan C, Ko T, Hiraoka H (1996) Surf Sci Rep 24:1
5. Mandracci P, Mussano F, Ricciardi C, Ceruti P, Pirri F, Carossa S
(2008) Surf Coat Technol 202:2477
6. Ono T, Nemoto T (2005) Matrix Biol 24:239
7. Leloup G, DHoore W, Bouter D, Degrange M, Vreven J (2001) J
Dent Res 80:1605
8. Hayakawa T, Yoshinari M, Nemoto K (2004) Biomaterials
25:119

J Mater Sci (2011) 46:27552763

9. Puleo D, Kissling R, Sheu M (2002) Biomaterials 23:2079
10. Cokeliler D, Erkut S, Zemek J, Biederman H, Mutlu M (2007)
Dent Mater 23:335
11. Yavirach P, Chaijareenont P, Boonyawan D, Pattamapun K,
Tunma S, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M (2009) Dent Mater J
28:686
12. Derand T, Molin M, Kvam K (2006) Acta Odontol Scand 64:227
13. Sladek R, Stoffels E, Walraven R, Tielbeek P, Koolhoven R
(2004) IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 32:1540
14. Lee HW, Kim GJ, Kim JM, Park JK, Lee JK, Kim GC (2009)
J Endod 35:587
15. Brentel A, Ozcan M, Valandro L, Alarca L, Amaral R, Bottino M
(2007) Dent Mater 23:1323

2763
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

Donmez N, Belli S, Pashley D, Tay F (2005) J Dent Res 84:355

Stangel I, Nathanson D, Hsu C (1987) J Dent Res 66:1460
Dickens S, Milos M (2002) Am J Dent 15:185
Kim B, Chun B (2009) J Thermoplas Compos Mater 22:21
Wei J, Yoshinari M, Takemoto S, Hattori M, Kawada E, Liu B,
Oda Y (2007) J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 81:66
Kopczynska A, Ehrenstein GW (2007) J Mater Educ 29:325
Turner R, Segall I, Boerio F, Davis G (1997) J Adhes 62:1
Lin T, Chun B, Yasuda H, Yang D, Antonelli J (1991) J Adhes
Sci Technol 5:893
Bismarck A, Brostow W, Chiu R, Hagg Lobland HE, Ho KKC
(2008) Polym Eng Sci 48:1971

123