OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength to a composite and a polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM block after six-month artificial aging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two types of CAD/CAM blocks (Cerasmart, GC; Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) were cut in slabs of 4-mm thickness, divided into six groups, and subjected to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: sandblasting (SB); group 3: SB + silane (Si); group 4: SB + Si + flowable composite (see below); group 5: 5% hydrofluoric acid etching (HF) + Si; and group 6: 37% phosphoric acid etching (H3PO4) + Si. Sections of the same group were luted together (n=3: 3 sandwich specimens/group) using a dual-cure self-adhesive cement for all groups, except for the sections of group 4 that were luted using a light-curing flowable composite. After three weeks of storage in 0.5% chloramine at 37°C, the sandwich specimens were sectioned in rectangular microspecimens and trimmed at the interface to a dumbbell shape (1.1-mm diameter). One half of the specimens was subjected to a microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test, and the other half was tested after six months of water storage (aging). Data were statistically analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model for the factors surface treatment, material type, and aging, together with their first-degree interactions (α=0.05). RESULTS: The lowest bond strengths were obtained in the absence of any surface treatment (group 1), while the highest μTBSs were obtained when the surface was roughened by either SB or HF, this in combination with chemical adhesion through Si. Loss in bond strength was observed after six-month aging when either surface roughening or silanization, or both, were omitted. CONCLUSIONS: Both the composite and polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM blocks appeared equally bonding-receptive regardless of the surface treatment used. Creating a microretentive surface by either SB or HF, followed by chemical adhesion using Si, is mandatory to maintain the bond strength after six months.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength to a composite and a polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM block after six-month artificial aging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two types of CAD/CAM blocks (Cerasmart, GC; Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) were cut in slabs of 4-mm thickness, divided into six groups, and subjected to the following surface treatments: group 1: no treatment; group 2: sandblasting (SB); group 3: SB + silane (Si); group 4: SB + Si + flowable composite (see below); group 5: 5% hydrofluoric acid etching (HF) + Si; and group 6: 37% phosphoric acid etching (H3PO4) + Si. Sections of the same group were luted together (n=3: 3 sandwich specimens/group) using a dual-cure self-adhesive cement for all groups, except for the sections of group 4 that were luted using a light-curing flowable composite. After three weeks of storage in 0.5% chloramine at 37°C, the sandwich specimens were sectioned in rectangular microspecimens and trimmed at the interface to a dumbbell shape (1.1-mm diameter). One half of the specimens was subjected to a microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test, and the other half was tested after six months of water storage (aging). Data were statistically analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model for the factors surface treatment, material type, and aging, together with their first-degree interactions (α=0.05). RESULTS: The lowest bond strengths were obtained in the absence of any surface treatment (group 1), while the highest μTBSs were obtained when the surface was roughened by either SB or HF, this in combination with chemical adhesion through Si. Loss in bond strength was observed after six-month aging when either surface roughening or silanization, or both, were omitted. CONCLUSIONS: Both the composite and polymer-infiltrated ceramic CAD/CAM blocks appeared equally bonding-receptive regardless of the surface treatment used. Creating a microretentive surface by either SB or HF, followed by chemical adhesion using Si, is mandatory to maintain the bond strength after six months.
Authors: Vincent Fouquet; François Lachard; Sarah Abdel-Gawad; Elisabeth Dursun; Jean-Pierre Attal; Philippe François Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 3.748