The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of shear bond strength between various temporary prostheses resin blocks fabricated by subtractive and additive manufacturing methods bonded to self-curing reline resin

절삭 및 적층 가공법으로 제작한 임시 보철물 레진 블록과 재이 장용 자가중합 레진의 전단결합강도 비교

  • Hyo-Min Ryu (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Jin-Han Lee (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 류효민 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이진한 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2023.03.13
  • Accepted : 2023.04.20
  • Published : 2023.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the shear bond strength between various temporary prostheses resin blocks fabricated by subtractive and additive manufacturing methods bonded to self-curing reline resin. Materials and methods. The experimental groups were divided into 4 groups according to the manufacturing methods of the resin block specimens and each specimen was fabricated by subtractive manufacturing (SM), additive manufacturing stereolithography apparatus manufacturing (AMS), additive manufacturing digital light processing manufacturing (AMD) and conventional self-curing (CON). To bond the resin block specimens and self-curing resin, the reline resin was injected and polymerized into the same location of each resin block using a silicone mold. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the surface of the adhesive interface was examined by scanning electron microscopy. To compare between groups, one-way ANOVA was done followed by Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results. The shear bond strength showed higher values in the order of CON, SM, AMS, and AMD group. There were significant differences between CON and AMS groups, as well as between CON and AMD groups. but there were no significant differences between CON and SM groups (P > .05). There were significant differences between SM and AMD groups, but there were no significant differences between SM and AMS groups. The AMS group was significantly different from the AMD group (P < .001). The most frequent failure mode was mixed failures in CON and AMS groups, and adhesive failures in SM and AMD groups. Conclusion. The shear bond strength of SM group showed lower but not significant bond strength compared to the CON group. The additive manufacturing method groups (AMS and AMD) showed significantly lower bond strength than the CON group, with the AMD group the lowest. There was also a significant difference between the AMD and SM group.

목적. 절삭 및 적층 가공 방식으로 제작한 임시 보철물 레진 블록과 재이장용 자가중합레진의 전단결합강도를 비교 평가하고자 하였다. 재료 및 방법. 레진 블록 시편의 제작방식에 따라 4개의 군으로 나누었고 subtractive manufacturing (SM), additive manufacturing stereolithography apparatus (AMS), additive manufacturing digital light processing (AMD), conventional self-curing (CON)의 방식으로 각 20개씩 레진 시편을 제작하였다. 제작 방식에 따른 레진 블록 시편과 재이장용 자가중합레진의 결합을 위해 시편의 표면에 실리콘 몰드를 이용하여 동일한 위치에 재이장 레진을 주입하여 중합하였다. 만능재료시험기를 이용하여 전단결합강도를 측정하였고 주사전자현미경으로 접착 계면의 파절 양상을 확인하였다. 실험군 간 비교를 위해 일원배치 분산분석과 사후 검정으로 Tukey test를 실시하였다(α = .05). 결과. 전단결합강도는 CON, SM, AMS, AMD군 순으로 높았다. CON군은 AMS군, AMD군과 유의한 차이가 있었고(P < .01) SM군과 유의한 차이가 없었다(P > .05). SM군은 AMD군과 유의한 차이가 있었고(P < .01) AMS군과 유의한 차이가 없었다(P > .05). AMS군은 AMD군과 유의한 차이가 있었다(P < .001). 파절 양상은 CON군, AMS군에서 혼합 파절이 높은 빈도로 나타났으며 SM군, AMD군에서 접착 파절이 높은 빈도로 나타났다. 결론. 절삭 및 적층 가공 방식으로 제작한 임시 보철물 레진 블록과 재이장용 자가중합 레진과의 전단결합강도에서 절삭 가공 방식(SM군)은 CON군보다 낮은 결합강도를 보였지만 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다. 적층 가공 방식(AMS군, AMD군)은 CON군보다 유의하게 낮은 결합강도를 보였으며, AMD군이 가장 낮은 결합강도를 보였고 AMD군은 SM군과도 유의한 차이를 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK; Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:474-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00259-2
  2. Patras M, Naka O, Doukoudakis S, Pissiotis A. Management of provisional restorations' deficiencies: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:26-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00467.x
  3. Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2009;18:507-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00473.x
  4. Regish KM, Sharma D, Prithviraj DR. Techniques of fabrication of provisional restoration: an overview. Int J Dent 2011;2011:134659.
  5. Mizrahi B. Temporary restorations: the key to success. Br Dent J 2019;226:761-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0360-1
  6. Dumbrigue HB. Composite indirect-direct method for fabricating multiple-unit provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:86-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.8
  7. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  8. Mai HN, Lee KB, Lee DH. Fit of interim crowns fabricated using photopolymer-jetting 3D printing. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:208-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.030
  9. Torabi K, Farjood E, Hamedani S. Rapid prototyping technologies and their applications in prosthodontics, a review of literature. J Dent (Shiraz) 2015;16:1-9.
  10. Jockusch J, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing of dental polymers: an overview on processes, materials and applications. Dent Mater J 2020;39:345-54. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-123
  11. Alharbi N, Wismeijer D, Osman RB. Additive manufacturing techniques in prosthodontics: Where do we currently stand? a critical review. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:474-84. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5079
  12. Papacchini F, Toledano M, Monticelli F, Osorio R, Radovic I, Polimeni A, Garcia-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Hydrolytic stability of composite repair bond. Eur J Oral Sci 2007;115:417-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00475.x
  13. Zinner ID, Trachtenberg DI, Miller RD. Provisional restorations in fixed partial prosthodontics. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:355-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-8532(22)03133-0
  14. Takahashi Y, Chai J. Assessment of shear bond strength between three denture reline materials and a denture base acrylic resin. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:531-5.
  15. Revilla-Leon M, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont 2019;28:146-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12801
  16. Lee SH. Prospect for 3D printing technology in medical, dental, and pediatric dental field. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 2016;43:93-108. https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2016.43.1.93
  17. Garoushi SK, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Short glass fiber-reinforced composite with a semi-interpenetrating polymer network matrix for temporary crowns and bridges. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:14-21. https://doi.org/10.5005/jcdp-9-1-14
  18. Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Marchi GM. Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:90-8; discussion 99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00073.x
  19. Chen HL, Lai YL, Chou IC, Hu CJ, Lee SY. Shear bond strength of provisional restoration materials repaired with light-cured resins. Oper Dent 2008;33:508-15. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-130
  20. Parikh V, Cheng DH, Linsley C, Shah KC. Bond strength of three chairside crown reline materials to milled polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:544.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.014
  21. Alshamrani AA, Raju R, Ellakwa A. Effect of printing layer thickness and postprinting conditions on the flexural strength and hardness of a 3D-printed resin. Biomed Res Int 2022;2022:8353137.
  22. Oliveira AC, Oshima HM, Mota EG, Grossi ML. Influence of chisel width on shear bond strength of composite to enamel. Rev Odonto Cienc 2009;24:19-21.
  23. Wiegand A, Stucki L, Hoffmann R, Attin T, Stawarczyk B. Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2007-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1411-x
  24. Lucena MC, Gonzalez LS, Navajas JM. The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:481-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.116775
  25. Lee YG, Moon SR, Cho YG. Effect of cutting instruments on the dentin bond strength of a self-etch adhesive. J Korean Acad Cons Dent 2010;35:13-9. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.1.013
  26. Jeong KW, Kim SH. Influence of surface treatments and repair materials on the shear bond strength of CAD/CAM provisional restorations. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:95-104. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.95
  27. Bayne SC, Lautenschlager EP, Compere CL, Wildes R. Degree of polymerization of acrylic bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res 1975;9:27-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820090104
  28. Palitsch A, Hannig M, Ferger P, Balkenhol M. Bonding of acrylic denture teeth to MMA/PMMA and light-curing denture base materials: the role of conditioning liquids. J Dent 2012;40:210-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.010
  29. Reeponmaha T, Angwaravong O, Angwarawong T. Comparison of fracture strength after thermo-mechanical aging between provisional crowns made with CAD/CAM and conventional method. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12:218-24. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.4.218