PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of three computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks repaired with composite resin using three surface treatment techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three different CAD/CAM blocks were used in this study: (1) Lithium disilicate, (2) feldspar ceramic, and (3) resin nano ceramic. All groups were further divided into four subgroups according to surface treatment: control, roughened with bur (B); roughened with bur and 5% Hydrofluoric acid (HF); roughened with bur and sandblasting (HF); and roughened with bur and CoJet (C). After surface treatments on each group, a silane and bonding agent were applied, and ceramics were repaired with a nano-hybrid composite. Then, the repaired ceramics were cut with a low-speed diamond saw for microtensile bond testing. Microtensile bond tests for 40 specimens per subgroup were carried out with a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed with ANOVA, Tukey's, and LSD at the 95% significance level. RESULTS: Mean bond strengths (MPa) of subgroups B, HF, S, and C were: 0, 29.8, 0, 23.3 for lithium disilicate ceramic; 26.4, 22.3, 22.4, 22 for feldspar ceramic; 54.8, 25.3, 42.1, 25.7 for resin nano ceramic. For subgroups B and S of lithium disilicate ceramics, bonding failed during specimen preparation. No significant differences were observed among all CoJet groups. In subgroups B and S, resin nano ceramics showed the highest bond strength. In feldspar groups, subgroup B showed higher bond strength than the other subgroups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that lithium disilicate porcelain blocks required etching for repairing with composite material. Surface treatments did not increase the bond strength in feldspar ceramic groups and reduced the bond strength in resin nano ceramic groups.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of three computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks repaired with composite resin using three surface treatment techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three different CAD/CAM blocks were used in this study: (1) Lithium disilicate, (2) feldspar ceramic, and (3) resin nano ceramic. All groups were further divided into four subgroups according to surface treatment: control, roughened with bur (B); roughened with bur and 5% Hydrofluoric acid (HF); roughened with bur and sandblasting (HF); and roughened with bur and CoJet (C). After surface treatments on each group, a silane and bonding agent were applied, and ceramics were repaired with a nano-hybrid composite. Then, the repaired ceramics were cut with a low-speed diamond saw for microtensile bond testing. Microtensile bond tests for 40 specimens per subgroup were carried out with a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed with ANOVA, Tukey's, and LSD at the 95% significance level. RESULTS: Mean bond strengths (MPa) of subgroups B, HF, S, and C were: 0, 29.8, 0, 23.3 for lithium disilicate ceramic; 26.4, 22.3, 22.4, 22 for feldspar ceramic; 54.8, 25.3, 42.1, 25.7 for resin nano ceramic. For subgroups B and S of lithium disilicate ceramics, bonding failed during specimen preparation. No significant differences were observed among all CoJet groups. In subgroups B and S, resin nano ceramics showed the highest bond strength. In feldspar groups, subgroup B showed higher bond strength than the other subgroups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that lithium disilicate porcelain blocks required etching for repairing with composite material. Surface treatments did not increase the bond strength in feldspar ceramic groups and reduced the bond strength in resin nano ceramic groups.