• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.40.1-40.10
• /
• 2018

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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.180-190
• /
• 2021

Purpose. This study aimed to assess the influence of various micromechanical surface conditioning (MSC) strategies with or without coupling agent (silane) application on the micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) of resin- matrix ceramics (RMCs). Materials and Methods. GC Cerasmart (GC), Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Enamic (VE), Voco Grandio (VG), and Brilliant Crios (BC) were cut into 1.0-mm-thick slices (n = 32 per RMC) and separated into four groups according to the MSC strategy applied: control-no conditioning (C), air-borne particle abrasion with aluminum oxide particles (APA), 2W- and 3W-Er,Cr:YSGG group coding is missing. The specimens in each group were further separated into silane-applied and silane-free subgroups. Each specimen received two resin cement microtubules (n = 8 per subgroup). A shear force was applied to the adhesive interface through a universal test machine and µSBS values were measured. Data were statistically analyzed by using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test. Failure patterns were scrutinized under stereomicroscope. Results. RMC material type, MSC strategy, and silanization influenced the µSBS values (P<.05). In comparison to the control group, µSBS values increased after all other MSC strategies (P<.05) while the differences among these strategies were insignificant (P>.05). For control and APA, there were insignificant differences between RMCs (P>.05). The silanization decreased µSBS values of RMCs except for VE. Considerable declines were observed in GC and BC (P<.05). Conclusion. MSC strategies can enhance bond strength values at the RMC - cement interface. However, the choice of MSC strategy is dependent on RMC material type and each RMC can require a dedicated way of conditioning.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.80-85
• /
• 2024

Background: This study aimed to compare and evaluate the marginal fit of nanocomposite computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) inlays. Three types of nanocomposite CAD/CAM blocks (HASEM, VITA Enamic, and Lava Ultimate) were used as materials. Methods: Class II disto-occlusal inlay restorations were prepared on a typodont mandibular right first molar using diamond rotary instruments. The inlays were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology and evaluated using the silicone replica technique to measure marginal gaps at five locations on each inlay. The data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05). Results: There were no significant differences in the marginal gaps based on the type of nanocomposite CAD/CAM inlay used (p=0.209). However, there was a significant difference in the marginal gaps between the measurement regions. The gingival region consistently exhibited a larger marginal gap than the axial and occlusal regions (p<0.001). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the measurement location significantly influenced the marginal fit of class II disto-occlusal inlay restorations. However, there were no significant differences in the marginal gaps among the different types of CAD/CAM blocks. Furthermore, the overall mean marginal fits of the class II disto-occlusal inlay restorations made with the three types of nanocomposite CAD/CAM blocks were within the clinically acceptable range.