Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Cement to Novel CAD/CAM Materials as a Function of Surface Treatment and Aging.

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.

[1]  L. Valandro,et al.  Resin Bonding to a Hybrid Ceramic: Effects of Surface Treatments and Aging. , 2016, Operative dentistry.

[2]  D. Nathanson,et al.  Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  J. Perdigão,et al.  Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Lithium Disilicate Substrates as a Function of Surface Preparation. , 2015, Operative dentistry.

[4]  E. Pow,et al.  Comparison of mechanical properties of three machinable ceramics with an experimental fluorophlogopite glass ceramic. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  W. Finger,et al.  In vitro evaluation of the wear resistance of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. , 2015, Dental materials journal.

[6]  J. Burgess,et al.  Influence of Etching Protocol and Silane Treatment with a Universal Adhesive on Lithium Disilicate Bond Strength. , 2015, Operative dentistry.

[7]  K. Er,et al.  Resin cement to indirect composite resin bonding: effect of various surface treatments. , 2015, Scanning.

[8]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. , 2015, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[9]  S. Elsaka Bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to self-adhesive resin cement: the effect of surface treatments. , 2014, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[10]  M. Blatz,et al.  Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. , 2014, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[11]  W. Finger,et al.  Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. , 2014, Dental materials journal.

[12]  Á. Della Bona,et al.  Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. , 2014, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[13]  D. Ruse,et al.  High-temperature-pressure Polymerized Resin-infiltrated Ceramic Networks , 2014, Journal of dental research.

[14]  Unité de Recherches,et al.  resin-composite blocks for Dental cAD/cAM Applications , 2014 .

[15]  Norbert Thiel,et al.  Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. , 2013, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[16]  J. Matinlinna,et al.  Silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry , 2013 .

[17]  J. Matinlinna,et al.  Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. , 2012, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[18]  M. Özcan,et al.  Possible hazardous effects of hydrofluoric acid and recommendations for treatment approach: a review , 2011, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[19]  B. Loomans,et al.  Surface roughness of etched composite resin in light of composite repair. , 2011, Journal of dentistry.

[20]  B. Loomans,et al.  Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[21]  P. Cesar,et al.  Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review. , 2010, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[22]  L. Valandro,et al.  Bond strength durability of a resin composite on a reinforced ceramic using various repair systems. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[23]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[24]  L. Valandro,et al.  Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions. , 2007, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[25]  C. D'Arcangelo,et al.  Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. , 2007, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[26]  J De Munck,et al.  Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. , 2007, Journal of dentistry.

[27]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Influence of Different Parameters on the Micro-tensile Bond Strength of adhesives , 2007 .

[28]  H. Matsumura,et al.  Adhesive bonding of a lithium disilicate ceramic material with resin-based luting agents. , 2005, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[29]  A. Feilzer,et al.  The effect of adhesives with various degrees of hydrophilicity on resin ceramic bond durability. , 2004, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[30]  J. Knowles,et al.  Influence of surface conditions and silane agent on the bond of resin to IPS Empress 2 ceramic. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[31]  A. Ellakwa,et al.  Effects of grit blasting and silanization on bond strengths of a resin luting cement to Belleglass HP indirect composite. , 2003, American journal of dentistry.

[32]  K. Yoshida,et al.  Effects of two silane coupling agents, a bonding agent, and thermal cycling on the bond strength of a CAD/CAM composite material cemented with two resin luting agents. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[33]  U Lohbauer,et al.  Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. , 2000, American journal of dentistry.