Gülce Alp1, Meryem Gülce Subaşı2, William M Johnston3, Burak Yilmaz4. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Okan University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: gulce165@hotmail.com. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Istanbul Aydin University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Professor Emeritus, Division of General Practice and Materials Science, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Associate Professor, Division of Restorative Sciences and Prosthodontics, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the bond strength of different types of ceramic-glass polymer computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials and resin cements after aging is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness of different ceramic-glass polymer CAD-CAM materials after 2 different surface treatments and the effect of material, surface treatment, resin cement, and aging on bond strength. Additionally, it was to determine any correlation between the surface roughness and bond strength. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CAD-CAM ceramic-glass polymer materials, a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) (VITA ENAMIC), a resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate), and a nanoparticle-filled resin (Cerasmart) (1.5 mm in thickness; n=144) were divided into 2 subgroups in terms of surface treatments: airborne-particle abraded or silica-coated. The surface roughness values of specimens were measured. Composite resin cylinders were prepared and bonded to the restorative specimens using 2 different types of resin cements (dual-polymerizing [DP] and light-polymerizing [LP]). Half of the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours, while the other half were submitted to 5000 thermocycles. The shear bond strength was measured, and the failure modes of the specimens were evaluated. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α=.05). The correlation between roughness and bond strength values was analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis. RESULTS: Material (P=.012) and surface treatment type (P=.031) significantly affected the surface roughness. For bond strength, significant interactions were found among the material type, surface treatment, resin cement, and aging factors (P=.009). No significant correlation was found between roughness and bond strength (P=.943). CONCLUSIONS: The surface treatment and resin cement type affected the bond strength and surface roughness of tested restorative materials. DP resin cement provided higher bond strength for airborne-particle abraded nanohybrid composite resin materials. LP resin cement achieved a higher bond strength when used with silica-coated, nanoparticle-filled resin and PICN materials.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the bond strength of different types of ceramic-glass polymer computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials and resin cements after aging is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness of different ceramic-glass polymer CAD-CAM materials after 2 different surface treatments and the effect of material, surface treatment, resin cement, and aging on bond strength. Additionally, it was to determine any correlation between the surface roughness and bond strength. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CAD-CAM ceramic-glass polymer materials, a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) (VITA ENAMIC), a resin nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate), and a nanoparticle-filled resin (Cerasmart) (1.5 mm in thickness; n=144) were divided into 2 subgroups in terms of surface treatments: airborne-particle abraded or silica-coated. The surface roughness values of specimens were measured. Composite resin cylinders were prepared and bonded to the restorative specimens using 2 different types of resin cements (dual-polymerizing [DP] and light-polymerizing [LP]). Half of the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours, while the other half were submitted to 5000 thermocycles. The shear bond strength was measured, and the failure modes of the specimens were evaluated. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α=.05). The correlation between roughness and bond strength values was analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis. RESULTS: Material (P=.012) and surface treatment type (P=.031) significantly affected the surface roughness. For bond strength, significant interactions were found among the material type, surface treatment, resin cement, and aging factors (P=.009). No significant correlation was found between roughness and bond strength (P=.943). CONCLUSIONS: The surface treatment and resin cement type affected the bond strength and surface roughness of tested restorative materials. DP resin cement provided higher bond strength for airborne-particle abraded nanohybrid composite resin materials. LP resin cement achieved a higher bond strength when used with silica-coated, nanoparticle-filled resin and PICN materials.