Bonding to new CAD/CAM resin composites: influence of air abrasion and conditioning agents as pretreatment strategy.
Air abrasion
CAD/CAM
Failure type
Resin composite
Tensile bond strengths
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
25
10
2016
accepted:
18
04
2018
pubmed:
29
4
2018
medline:
14
6
2019
entrez:
29
4
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Because of their industrially standardized process of manufacturing, CAD/CAM resin composites show a high degree of conversion, making a reliable bond difficult to achieve. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the tensile bond strength (TBS) of luting composite to CAD/CAM resin composite materials as influenced by air abrasion and pretreatment strategies. The treatment factors of the present study were (1) brand of the CAD/CAM resin composite (Brilliant Crios [Coltene/Whaledent], Cerasmart [GC Europe], Shofu Block HC [Shofu], and Lava Ultimate [3M]); (2) air abrasion vs. no air abrasion; and (3) pretreatment using a silane primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer, Kuraray) vs. a resin primer (One Coat 7 Universal, Coltene/Whaledent). Subsequently, luting composite (DuoCem, Coltene/Whaledent) was polymerized onto the substrate surface using a mold. For each combination of the levels of the three treatment factors (4 (materials) × 2 (air abrasion vs. no air abrasion; resin) × 2 (primer vs. silane primer)), n = 15, specimens were prepared. After 24 h of water storage at 37 °C and 5000 thermo-cycles (5/55 °C), TBS was measured and failure types were examined. The resulting data was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative failure distribution function with Breslow-Gehan tests and non-parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test) followed by the multiple pairwise Mann-Whitney U test with α-error adjustment using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure and chi-square test (p < 0.05). The additional air abrasion step increased TBS values and lowered failure rates. Specimens pretreated using a resin primer showed significantly higher TBS and lower failure rates than those pretreated using a silane primer. The highest failure rates were observed for groups pretreated with a silane primer. Within the Shofu Block HC group, all specimens without air abrasion and pretreatment with a silane primer debonded during the aging procedure. Before fixation of CAD/CAM resin composites, the restorations should be air abraded and pretreated using a resin primer containing methyl-methacrylate to successfully bond to the luting composite. The pretreatment of the CAD/CAM resin composite using merely a silane primer results in deficient adhesion. For a reliable bond of CAD/CAM resin composites to the luting composite, air abrasion and a special pretreatment strategy are necessary in order to achieve promising long-term results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29704137
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2461-7
pii: 10.1007/s00784-018-2461-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Clearfil Ceramic Primer
0
Composite Resins
0
Methacrylates
0
One Coat Bond
0
Resin Cements
0
Brilliant Dentin resin
129037-92-9
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
529-538Références
Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2016 Jul 19;7(1-2):1-3
pubmed: 27486504
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012 Oct;24(5):310-8
pubmed: 23025313
Int J Prosthodont. 2002 May-Jun;15(3):267-72
pubmed: 12066490
Dent Mater. 2017 Mar;33(3):e124-e135
pubmed: 28057347
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Mar;19(2):299-308
pubmed: 24930133
Dent Mater J. 2013;32(3):492-501
pubmed: 23719013
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Feb;16(1):201-13
pubmed: 21336631
J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Feb;107(2):94-101
pubmed: 22304743
Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):29-38
pubmed: 21093034
Dent Mater. 2007 Oct;23(10):1276-82
pubmed: 17174388
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Feb;115(2):199-202
pubmed: 26460171
J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Jun;95(6):430-6
pubmed: 16765155
Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e100-21
pubmed: 20006379
Dent Mater. 2016 Dec;32(12):1575-1585
pubmed: 27771139
J Appl Oral Sci. 2004 Mar;12(1):45-50
pubmed: 21365151
Dent Mater. 2012 May;28(5):529-34
pubmed: 22230107
Dent Mater J. 2009 Jan;28(1):44-56
pubmed: 19280967
Dent Clin North Am. 2007 Jul;51(3):643-58, vi
pubmed: 17586148
Br Dent J. 2008 May 10;204(9):505-11
pubmed: 18469768
Acta Odontol Scand. 2011 May;69(3):144-50
pubmed: 21208023
Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56 Suppl 1:97-106
pubmed: 21564120
J Dent. 2012 Mar;40(3):210-21
pubmed: 22207164
J Prosthet Dent. 2010 Sep;104(3):149-57
pubmed: 20813228
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):227-36
pubmed: 26001334
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Mar;89(3):268-74
pubmed: 12644802
J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Apr;105(4):217-26
pubmed: 21458646
Dent Mater J. 2012;31(3):377-83
pubmed: 22673470
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015 Mar;55:1-11
pubmed: 26519658
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Feb;85(2):184-9
pubmed: 11208209
Dent Mater. 2012 May;28(5):467-77
pubmed: 22425571
Quintessence Int. 2002 Mar;33(3):213-24
pubmed: 11921770