OBJECTIVES: The aim of this investigation was to test the tensile bond strength (TBS) between different computer-aided-design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics after conditioning using different universal adhesive systems and resin composite cement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Substrates of four CAD/CAM ceramics-1) VITABLOCS Mark II, 2) Initial LRF, 3) Celtra Duo, and 4) IPS e.max CAD (N=648, n=162)-were fabricated. VITABLOCS Mark II and Initial LRF were etched using 9% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, Celtra Duo for 30 seconds, and IPS e.max CAD for 20 seconds. Substrates for conditioning using Monobond Etch & Prime were untreated. The following adhesive systems were used: All-Bond Universal (ABU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB), G-Multi Primer (GMP), iBond Universal (IBU), Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP), Monobond Plus (MBP), One Coat 7 Universal (OCU), Prime&Bond Active (PBA), and Scotchbond Universal (SBU). Conditioned substrates were bonded using a resin composite cement (Variolink Esthetic DC), thermal cycled (20,000×, 5°C/55°C), and TBS was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using univariate analysis with partial eta-squared, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman-Rho tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: ABU, MEP, and MBP obtained the significantly highest TBS, while CUB, IBU, and OCO resulted in the lowest, regardless of the CAD/CAM ceramic. SBU showed varying TBS results depending on the CAD/CAM ceramic used. ABU, MEP, and MBP showed no impact of CAD/CAM ceramic on TBS values. ABU, GMP, MEP, and MBP showed predominantly cohesive failure types in luting composite, while CUB and OCU demonstrated adhesive failure types.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this investigation was to test the tensile bond strength (TBS) between different computer-aided-design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics after conditioning using different universal adhesive systems and resin composite cement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Substrates of four CAD/CAM ceramics-1) VITABLOCS Mark II, 2) Initial LRF, 3) Celtra Duo, and 4) IPS e.max CAD (N=648, n=162)-were fabricated. VITABLOCS Mark II and Initial LRF were etched using 9% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, Celtra Duo for 30 seconds, and IPS e.max CAD for 20 seconds. Substrates for conditioning using Monobond Etch & Prime were untreated. The following adhesive systems were used: All-Bond Universal (ABU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB), G-Multi Primer (GMP), iBond Universal (IBU), Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP), Monobond Plus (MBP), One Coat 7 Universal (OCU), Prime&Bond Active (PBA), and Scotchbond Universal (SBU). Conditioned substrates were bonded using a resin composite cement (Variolink Esthetic DC), thermal cycled (20,000×, 5°C/55°C), and TBS was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using univariate analysis with partial eta-squared, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman-Rho tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: ABU, MEP, and MBP obtained the significantly highest TBS, while CUB, IBU, and OCO resulted in the lowest, regardless of the CAD/CAM ceramic. SBU showed varying TBS results depending on the CAD/CAM ceramic used. ABU, MEP, and MBP showed no impact of CAD/CAM ceramic on TBS values. ABU, GMP, MEP, and MBP showed predominantly cohesive failure types in luting composite, while CUB and OCU demonstrated adhesive failure types.
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
Authors: Rebecca Jungbauer; Christian Kirschneck; Christian M Hammer; Peter Proff; Daniel Edelhoff; Bogna Stawarczyk Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.573
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