Thomas Strasser1, Verena Preis2, Michael Behr2, Martin Rosentritt2. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, UKR University Hospital Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. thomasstrasser85@gmail.com. 2. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, UKR University Hospital Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of surface pre-treatment on CAD/CAM materials including ceramics, zirconia, resin-infiltrated ceramic, and resin-based composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens were made of ten CAD/CAM materials (Celtra Duo, Degudent, D; Vita Suprinity, Vita, D; E.max CAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL; E.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL; Vita Enamic, Vita, D; Cerasmart, GC, B; LAVA Ultimate, 3M, D; SHOFU Block HC, SHOFU, US; Grandio Blocs, VOCO, D; BRILLIANT Crios, Coltene, CH) and pretreated to represent clinical procedures (Hf 20 s/5%; phosphoric acid 20 s/37%; Monobond etch and prime (Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL); water-cooled diamond bur (80 μm; 4 μm); Al2O3-blasting (50 μm/1 bar, 50 μm/2 bar, 120 μm/1 bar, 120 μm/2 bar); untreated; manufacturer's instructions). SEM-analysis (Phenom, FEI, NL) of the surfaces was performed (magnifications ≤ 10,000×). Roughness values Ra, Rz (KJ 3D, Keyence, J), and surface energy SE (OCA15 plus, SCA20, DataPhysics, D) were determined (statistics: non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test/Kruskal-Wallis test for independent specimen, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis revealed significant (p < 0.001) differences for all materials with different surface treatments. Roughness ranged from Ra = 0.05 μm (VS; D4)/Rz = 0.41 μm (VS; D4) to Ra = 1.82 μm (EMA; SB120/2)/Rz = 12.05 μm (CS; SB 120/2), SE from 22.7 mN/m (VE; M) to 52.8 mN/m (CD; M). SEM analysis showed material-dependent damages after pre-treatment. CONCLUSION: Different CAD/CAM materials require individual pre-treatment for optimized and protective surface activation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cementation is a key factor for clinical success. Given the variety of available CAD/CAM materials, specific procedures are needed.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of surface pre-treatment on CAD/CAM materials including ceramics, zirconia, resin-infiltrated ceramic, and resin-based composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens were made of ten CAD/CAM materials (Celtra Duo, Degudent, D; Vita Suprinity, Vita, D; E.max CAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL; E.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL; Vita Enamic, Vita, D; Cerasmart, GC, B; LAVA Ultimate, 3M, D; SHOFU Block HC, SHOFU, US; Grandio Blocs, VOCO, D; BRILLIANT Crios, Coltene, CH) and pretreated to represent clinical procedures (Hf 20 s/5%; phosphoric acid 20 s/37%; Monobond etch and prime (Ivoclar-Vivadent, FL); water-cooled diamond bur (80 μm; 4 μm); Al2O3-blasting (50 μm/1 bar, 50 μm/2 bar, 120 μm/1 bar, 120 μm/2 bar); untreated; manufacturer's instructions). SEM-analysis (Phenom, FEI, NL) of the surfaces was performed (magnifications ≤ 10,000×). Roughness values Ra, Rz (KJ 3D, Keyence, J), and surface energy SE (OCA15 plus, SCA20, DataPhysics, D) were determined (statistics: non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test/Kruskal-Wallis test for independent specimen, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis revealed significant (p < 0.001) differences for all materials with different surface treatments. Roughness ranged from Ra = 0.05 μm (VS; D4)/Rz = 0.41 μm (VS; D4) to Ra = 1.82 μm (EMA; SB120/2)/Rz = 12.05 μm (CS; SB 120/2), SE from 22.7 mN/m (VE; M) to 52.8 mN/m (CD; M). SEM analysis showed material-dependent damages after pre-treatment. CONCLUSION: Different CAD/CAM materials require individual pre-treatment for optimized and protective surface activation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cementation is a key factor for clinical success. Given the variety of available CAD/CAM materials, specific procedures are needed.
Authors: Carlos González-Serrano; Jin-Ho Phark; María Victoria Fuentes; Alberto Albaladejo; Andrés Sánchez-Monescillo; Sillas Duarte; Laura Ceballos Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 3.573