Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제43권4호
  • /
  • Pages.40.1-40.10
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements

  • Sadighpour, Leyla (Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Geramipanah, Farideh (Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ghasri, Zahra (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University) ;
  • Neshatian, Mehrnoosh (Matrix Dynamic Group, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto)
  • 투고 : 2018.02.18
  • 심사 : 2018.07.11
  • 발행 : 2018.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (${\mu}TBS$) of polymer-ceramic and indirect composite resin with 3 classes of resin cements. Materials and Methods: Two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated polymer-ceramics (Enamic [ENA; Vita] and Lava Ultimate [LAV; 3M ESPE]) and a laboratory indirect composite resin (Gradia [GRA; GC Corp.]) were equally divided into 6 groups (n = 18) with 3 classes of resin cements: Variolink N (VAR; Vivadent), RelyX U200 (RXU; 3M ESPE), and Panavia F2 (PAN; Kuraray). The ${\mu}TBS$ values were compared between groups by 2-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tamhane test (${\alpha}=0.05$). Results: Restorative materials and resin cements significantly influenced ${\mu}TBS$ (p < 0.05). In the GRA group, the highest ${\mu}TBS$ was found with RXU ($27.40{\pm}5.39N$) and the lowest with VAR ($13.54{\pm}6.04N$) (p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in the ENA group. In the LAV group, the highest ${\mu}TBS$ was observed with VAR ($27.45{\pm}5.84N$) and the lowest with PAN ($10.67{\pm}4.37N$) (p < 0.05). PAN had comparable results to those of ENA and GRA, whereas the ${\mu}TBS$ values were significantly lower with LAV (p = 0.001). The highest bond strength of RXU was found with GRA ($27.40{\pm}5.39N$, p = 0.001). PAN showed the lowest ${\mu}TBS$ with LAV ($10.67{\pm}4.37N$; p < 0.001). Conclusions: When applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, the ${\mu}TBS$ of polymer-ceramic CAD/CAM materials and indirect composites is influenced by the luting cements.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater 2014;30:564-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.019
  2. Fron Chabouis H, Smail Faugeron V, Attal JP. Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2013;29:1209-1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.009
  3. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1141-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.006
  4. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J 2015;34:161-167. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-159
  5. Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;53:12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011
  6. Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:227-235.
  7. Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Egilmez F, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Micro-shear bond strength of different resin cements to ceramic/glass-polymer CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60:265-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.02.003
  8. Swain MV, Coldea A, Bilkhair A, Guess PC. Interpenetrating network ceramic-resin composite dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 2016;32:34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.009
  9. Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:587-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.016
  10. Kumbuloglu O, Ozcan M. Clinical survival of indirect, anterior 3-unit surface-retained fibre-reinforced composite fixed dental prosthesis: up to 7.5-years follow-up. J Dent 2015;43:656-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.006
  11. Jongsma LA, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Clinical success and survival of indirect resin composite crowns: results of a 3-year prospective study. Dent Mater 2012;28:952-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.007
  12. Frankenberger R, Hartmann VE, Krech M, Kramer N, Reich S, Braun A, Roggendorf M. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:9-20.
  13. Elsaka SE. Bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to self-adhesive resin cement: the effect of surface treatments. J Adhes Dent 2014;16:531-540.
  14. Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G, Irie M, Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B. Sandblasting may damage the surface of composite CAD-CAM blocks. Dent Mater 2017;33:e124-e135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.12.003
  15. Peumans M, Valjakova EB, De Munck J, Mishevska CB, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding effectiveness of luting composites to different CAD/CAM materials. J Adhes Dent 2016;18:289-302.
  16. Flury S, Schmidt SZ, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Dentin bond strength of two resin-ceramic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials and five cements after six months storage. CAD/CAM-materials after storage. Dent Mater J 2016;35:728-735. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-095
  17. da Silva EM, Miragaya L, Sabrosa CE, Maia LC. Stability of the bond between two resin cements and an yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic after six months of aging in water. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:568-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.003
  18. Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:295-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02148.x
  19. Frassetto A, Navarra CO, Marchesi G, Turco G, Di Lenarda R, Breschi L, Ferracane JL, Cadenaro M. Kinetics of polymerization and contraction stress development in self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater 2012;28:1032-1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.06.003
  20. Campos F, Almeida CS, Rippe MP, de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Resin bonding to a hybrid ceramic: effects of surface treatments and aging. Oper Dent 2016;41:171-178. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-057-L
  21. Keul C, Martin A, Wimmer T, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B. Stawarcxyk. Tensile bond strength of PMMA- and composite-based CAD/CAM materials to luting cements after different conditioning methods. Int J Adhes Adhes 2013;46:122-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.06.003
  22. El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 2003;19:575-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00107-0
  23. Stawarczyk B, Basler T, Ender A, Roos M, Ozcan M, Hammerle C. Effect of surface conditioning with airborne-particle abrasion on the tensile strength of polymeric CAD/CAM crowns luted with self-adhesive and conventional resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60031-6
  24. Pereira SG, Fulgencio R, Nunes TG, Toledano M, Osorio R, Carvalho RM. Effect of curing protocol on the polymerization of dual-cured resin cements. Dent Mater 2010;26:710-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.016
  25. Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LV, User A, Vallittu PK. A study of the physical and chemical properties of four resin composite luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:357-363.
  26. Gilbert S, Keul C, Roos M, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B. Bonding between CAD/CAM resin and resin composite cements dependent on bonding agents: three different in vitro test methods. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:227-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1494-4
  27. El Zohairy AA, de Gee AJ, de Jager N, van Ruijven LJ, Feilzer AJ. The influence of specimen attachment and dimension on microtensile strength. J Dent Res 2004;83:420-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300513

피인용 문헌

  1. Fatigue Behavior of Monolithic Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic Restorations: Effects of Conditionings of the Intaglio Surface and the Resin Cements vol.46, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2341/20-025-l