Simona Gilbert1, Christine Keul1, Malgorzata Roos2, Daniel Edelhoff1, Bogna Stawarczyk3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. 2. Division of Biostatistics, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Hirschgraben 84, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the bonding properties between CAD/CAM resin and three resin composite cements combined with different bonding agents using three test methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty CAD/CAM resin substrates were fabricated and divided into three test methods (shear bond strength (SBS, n = 180), tensile bond strength (TBS, n = 180) and work of adhesion (WA, n = 60)), further into four pretreatment methods (VP connect (VP), visio.link (VL), Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CP) and no pretreatment (CG)) and three cements (RelyX ARC, Variolink II and Clearfil SA Cement). Each subgroup contained 15 specimens. SBS and TBS were measured after 24 h H2O/37 °C + 5000 thermal-cycles (5/55 °C) and failure types were assessed. WA was determined for pretreated CAD/CAM resin and non-polymerized resin composite cements. Data were analysed with Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis H, Chi(2) and Spearman's Rho tests. RESULTS: Within SBS and TBS tests, CGs and groups pretreated with CP (regardless of resin composite cements), and VP pretreated with Clearfil SA Cement showed no bond. However, CG combined with RelyX ARC showed a TBS of 5.6 ± 1.3 MPa. In general, highest bond strength was observed for groups treated with VL. CG and groups pretreated using VL showed lower WA than the groups treated with VP or CP. CONCLUSIONS: Measured TBS values were higher than SBS ones. In general, SBS and TBS showed similar trends for the ranges of the values for the groups. WA results were not comparable with SBS/TBS results and admitted, therefore, no conclusions on it. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For a clinical use of XHIP-CAD/CAM resin, the bond surface should be additionally pretreated with visio.link as bonding agent.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the bonding properties between CAD/CAM resin and three resin composite cements combined with different bonding agents using three test methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty CAD/CAM resin substrates were fabricated and divided into three test methods (shear bond strength (SBS, n = 180), tensile bond strength (TBS, n = 180) and work of adhesion (WA, n = 60)), further into four pretreatment methods (VP connect (VP), visio.link (VL), Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CP) and no pretreatment (CG)) and three cements (RelyX ARC, Variolink II and Clearfil SA Cement). Each subgroup contained 15 specimens. SBS and TBS were measured after 24 h H2O/37 °C + 5000 thermal-cycles (5/55 °C) and failure types were assessed. WA was determined for pretreated CAD/CAM resin and non-polymerized resin composite cements. Data were analysed with Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis H, Chi(2) and Spearman's Rho tests. RESULTS: Within SBS and TBS tests, CGs and groups pretreated with CP (regardless of resin composite cements), and VP pretreated with Clearfil SA Cement showed no bond. However, CG combined with RelyX ARC showed a TBS of 5.6 ± 1.3 MPa. In general, highest bond strength was observed for groups treated with VL. CG and groups pretreated using VL showed lower WA than the groups treated with VP or CP. CONCLUSIONS: Measured TBS values were higher than SBS ones. In general, SBS and TBS showed similar trends for the ranges of the values for the groups. WA results were not comparable with SBS/TBS results and admitted, therefore, no conclusions on it. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For a clinical use of XHIP-CAD/CAM resin, the bond surface should be additionally pretreated with visio.link as bonding agent.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bonding agents; CAD/CAM resin; Resin composite cement; Shear bond strength; Tensile bond strength; Work of adhesion
Authors: Bogna Stawarczyk; Beatrice Sener; Albert Trottmann; Malgorzata Roos; Mutlu Ozcan; Christoph H F Hämmerle Journal: Dent Mater J Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Andrea Mello de Andrade; Sandra Kiss Moura; Alessandra Reis; Alessandro Dourado Loguercio; Eugenio Jose Garcia; Rosa Helena Miranda Grande Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.698