Özlem Üstün1, Işıl Keçik Büyükhatipoğlu2, Aslı Seçilmiş3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Akdeniz Universitesi, Antalya, Turkey. 2. Private Practice, Gaziantep, Turkey. 3. Department of Prosthodontic Dentistry, Gaziantep Universitesi, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the bond strength of repair systems (Ceramic Repair, Clearfil Repair) to computer-aided design/computer-assisted machining (CAD/CAM) restorative materials (IPS e.max CAD, Vita Suprinity, Vita Enamic, Lava Ultimate). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thermally aged CAD/CAM restorative material specimens (5000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C) were randomly divided into two groups according to the repair system: Ceramic Repair (37% phosphoric acid + Monobond-S + Heliobond + Tetric N Ceram) or Clearfil Repair (40% phosphoric acid + mixture of Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator and Clearfil SE Bond Primer + Clearfil SE Bond + Filtek Z250). The resin composite was light-cured on conditioned specimens. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and then additionally aged for 5000 thermal cycles. The shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Two-way ANOVA was used to detect significance differences according to the CAD/CAM material and composite repair system factors. Subgroup analyses were conducted using the least significant difference post-hoc test. RESULTS: The results of two-way ANOVA indicated that bond strength values varied according to the restorative materials (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the CAD/CAM restorative materials (p > 0.05), except in the Vita Suprinity group (p < 0.05). Moreover, no differences were observed between the repair systems. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Clearfil and Ceramic repair systems used in the study allow for successful repairs.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the bond strength of repair systems (Ceramic Repair, Clearfil Repair) to computer-aided design/computer-assisted machining (CAD/CAM) restorative materials (IPS e.max CAD, Vita Suprinity, Vita Enamic, Lava Ultimate). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thermally aged CAD/CAM restorative material specimens (5000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C) were randomly divided into two groups according to the repair system: Ceramic Repair (37% phosphoric acid + Monobond-S + Heliobond + Tetric N Ceram) or Clearfil Repair (40% phosphoric acid + mixture of Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator and Clearfil SE Bond Primer + Clearfil SE Bond + Filtek Z250). The resin composite was light-cured on conditioned specimens. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and then additionally aged for 5000 thermal cycles. The shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Two-way ANOVA was used to detect significance differences according to the CAD/CAM material and composite repair system factors. Subgroup analyses were conducted using the least significant difference post-hoc test. RESULTS: The results of two-way ANOVA indicated that bond strength values varied according to the restorative materials (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the CAD/CAM restorative materials (p > 0.05), except in the Vita Suprinity group (p < 0.05). Moreover, no differences were observed between the repair systems. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Clearfil and Ceramic repair systems used in the study allow for successful repairs.
Authors: Paula C K Carvalho; Cláudia C M S Almeida; Rodrigo O A Souza; Rubens Nisie Tango Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 3.748