FARKLI ÜNİVERSAL BAĞLAYICI AJANLARIN CAD/CAM SERAMİKLERİN KOMPOZİT REZİN İLE TAMİRİ SONRASI BAĞLANMA KUVVETİNE ETKİSİ

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 3, 381 - 386, 16.07.2019

Kübra Cantürk Buket Karalar Ömer Sağsöz Nilgün Seven Nurdan Polat Sağsöz Yusuf Ziya Bayındır

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.528323

Cited By: 2

Abstract

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada
iki farklı CAD/CAM seramiğe bir primer ve iki farklı bağlayıcı ajan uygulanarak kompozit rezinle tamir
sonrası bağlanma kuvvetinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı.

YÖNTEM: CAD/CAM seramik
materyallerden (VITA Suprinity ve IPS e.max CAD) 30’ar adet örnek hazırlandı.
Örnekleri elde etmek için yavaş hızlı testere (ISOMET 1000) kullanılarak
seramik bloklardan 1 mm kalınlığında kesitler alındı. Daha sonra seramikler
soğuk akriliğe sabitlenerek yüzeylerine 1dk boyunca %10’luk hidroflorik asit
uygulandı. Primer uygulamasına göre seramikler iki gruba ayrıldı: BISCO
Z-Prime-ZP ve primer kullanılmayan kontrol grubu-K. Uygulanan bağlayıcı
ajanlara göre de seramikler 2 alt gruba daha ayrıldı: 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb,
KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond Quick -Qb (n=5). 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb
  seramiklere 20 sn boyunca ovalama
hareketi ile uygulanıp 5 sn hava ile seyreltildi ve LED ışık cihazı ile 10
sn  polimerize edildi. KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond
Quick-Qb  ise seramiklere 10 sn
boyunca ovalama hareketi ile uygulanıp 5 sn hava ile seyreltildi ve LED ışık
cihazı ile 10 sn  polimerize edildi.  Bir kompozit rezin (VOCO Xtra-fil) 4 mm
çapında ve 4 mm yüksekliğinde plastik kalıplar kullanılarak bir LED ışık cihazı
ile seramik yüzeylerde polimerize edildi. Elde edilen örnekler 24 saat 37°C saf
suda bekletildi. Bağlanma kuvvetleri bir universal test cihazı kullanılarak
makaslama testi ile ölçüldü. Kaydedilen değerler tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA)  kullanılarak
analiz edildi (p<0.05). Kırılma tipleri bir stereo mikroskop yardımıyla
tespit edildi.

BULGULAR: En yüksek
bağlanma dayanımı Suprinity+K+Qb (20.15 MPa) grubunda, en düşük bağlanma
dayanımı e.max CAD+ZP+Qb (10.85 MPa) grubunda bulundu. Primer ve bağlayıcı
ajanlar arasında herhangi bir fark bulunmazken (p>0.05), seramikler arasında
önemli derecede fark bulundu (p<0.05). e.max CAD örneklerin bağlanma değerleri
Suprinity ye göre anlamlı derecede daha düşük bulundu (p<0.05).

SONUÇ: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde; üniversal bağlayıcı ajanların tek
başına kullanıldığı kontrol grubunun, BISCO Z-Prime Plus kullanılan gruplara
benzer bağlanma sonuçları gösterdiği ve iki uygulamanın da klinik olarak
yeterli bağlanma dayanımı sağladıkları belirlenmiştir. Üniversal bağlayıcı
ajanlar, CAD/CAM seramiklerin kompozit rezin ile tamirinde klinik olarak tek
başlarına kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Bağlanma
Kuvveti, Kompozit, Üniversal Bond, Seramik

• THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT UNIVERSAL BONDING AGENTS ON THE BOND STRENGTH OF
  CAD/CAM CERAMICS REPAIRED WITH COMPOSITE RESIN

AIM: In this study, a
primer and two bonding agents were used on two different CAD / CAM ceramics to
evaluate the bond strength after repairing with composite resin.

METHODS: 30 samples were prepared from CAD/CAM ceramic materials (VITA Suprinity and IPS e.max CAD). 1 mm
thick sections were cut from the ceramic blocks using a low speed diamond saw
(ISOMET 1000) to obtain  the samples.
Then the ceramics were fixed to with cold cured acrylic and the surfaces were
treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 1 min. According to the primer
application, ceramics were divided into two groups: BISCO Z-Prime-ZP and control group without
primer-K. According to the bonding agents applied, ceramics were further
divided into 2 subgroups: 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb and KURARAY Clearfil
Universal Bond Quick-Qb (n = 5). 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb was applied
to ceramics with a scrubbing for 20 seconds and thinned with air for 5 seconds and polymerized with LED device for 10
seconds. KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-Qb was applied to ceramics with
a scrubbing  for 10 seconds and thinned with air for 5 seconds and polymerized with LED device for 10
seconds. A composite resin (VOCO Xtra-fil) was polymerized on ceramic surfaces
with a LED device using 4 mm diameter and 4 mm height plastic molds. The obtained
samples were stored for 24 hours at 37 ° C in distilled water. Bond strength
values were measured by a shear bond test using a universal tester. The
recorded values were analyzed using
Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). (p<0.05) The
fracture types were detected using a stereo
microscope.

RESULTS: The highest bond strength was found in the group Suprinity + K +
Qb (20.15 MPa), with the lowest bond strength in the group of e.max CAD + ZP +
Qb (10.85 MPa). There was no significant difference between the primer groups
and bonding agent groups (p>0.05), but there was a significant difference
between the ceramics (p<0.05). The bond strength values of e.max CAD samples
were significantly lower than Suprinity samples. (p<0.05)

CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study; The control
group using the universal bonding agents were shown to exhibit similar bonding
results to those group used BISCO Z-Prime Plus and that both applications provided
clinically sufficient bond strength. Universal bonding
agents can be used alone in the clinical repair of CAD/CAM ceramics with
composite resin.

Keywords: Bond Strength, Ceramics, Composite, Universal Bond

Keywords

Bağlanma Kuvveti, Kompozit, Üniversal Bond

References

• 1. Yüce ŞM TA. Bilgisayar destekli tasarım-bilgisayar destekli üretim ve presleme sistemleriyle üretilen porselen laminat venerlerin kenar ve internal uyumlarının karşılaştırılması: in-vitro çalışma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 2016.
• 2. Wang YG, Xing YX, Sun YC, Zhao YJ, Lu PJ, Wang Y. [Preliminary evaluation of clinical effect of computer aided design and computer aided manufacture zirconia crown]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2013, 48: 355-358.
• 3. Aboushelib MN. Fatigue and fracture resistance of zirconia crowns prepared with different finish line designs. J Prosthodont, 2012, 21: 22-27.
• 4. Hickel R, Brushaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations--criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater, 2013, 29: 28-50.
• 5. Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2007, 18 Suppl 3: 86-96.
• 6. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2002, 87: 503-509.
• 7. Setcos J, Khosravi R, Wilson N, Shen C, Yang M, Mjor I. Repair or replacement of amalgam restorations: Decisions at a USA and a UK dental school. Operative Dentistry, 2004, 29: 392-397.
• 8. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode' adhesive to enamel and dentine. Journal of Dentistry, 2012, 40: 475-484.
• 9. Neis CA, Albuquerque NL, Albuquerque Ide S, Gomes EA, Souza-Filho CB, Feitosa VP, Spazzin AO, Bacchi A. Surface treatments for repair of feldspathic, leucite - and lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramics using composite resin. Braz Dent J, 2015, 26: 152-155.
• 10. Oh W-s, Shen CJTJopd. Effect of surface topography on the bond strength of a composite to three different types of ceramic. 2003, 90: 241-246.
• 11. Robbins JW. Intraoral repair of the fractured porcelain restoration. Operative Dentistry, 1998, 23: 203-207.
• 12. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers bonded to tooth structure: an ultra-morphological FE-SEM examination of the adhesive interface. Dent Mater, 1999, 15: 105-119.
• 13. Colares RC, Neri JR, Souza AM, Pontes KM, Mendonca JS, Santiago SL. Effect of surface pretreatments on the microtensile bond strength of lithium-disilicate ceramic repaired with composite resin. Braz Dent J, 2013, 24: 349-352.
• 14. Duzyol M, Sagsoz O, Sagsoz NP, Akgul N, Yildiz M. The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM Blocks and Composite Resin. Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry, 2016, 25: 466-471.
• 15. Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1996, 76: 119-124.
• 16. Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater, 2003, 19: 725-731.
• 17. Dong JK OS. The microstructure of IPS Empress ceramics according to the heat treatment and the sprue type. J Korean Acad Prosthodont, 1998, 36:73-86.
• 18. Matsumura H, Kato H, Atsuta M. Shear bond strength to feldspathic porcelain of two luting cements in combination with three surface treatments. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1997, 78: 511-517.
• 19. Dellabona A, Vannoort R. Shear Vs Tensile Bond Strength of Resin Composite Bonded to Ceramic. Journal of Dental Research, 1995, 74: 1591-1596.
• 20. Leibrock A, Degenhart M, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G. In vitro study of the effect of thermo- and load-cycling on the bond strength of porcelain repair systems. J Oral Rehabil, 1999, 26: 130-137.
• 21. Sadeghi M, Davari A, Abolghasami Mahani A, Hakimi H. Influence of Different Power Outputs of Er:YAG Laser on Shear Bond Strength of a Resin Composite to Feldspathic Porcelain. J Dent (Shiraz), 2015, 16: 30-36.
• 22. Lundvall PKR RH, Ekstrand K. . Comparison of different etc¬hing agents and repair materials used on feldspatic porcelain. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2009, 23:1177-86.
• 23. Kalra A, Mohan MS, Gowda EM. Comparison of shear bond strength of two porcelain repair systems after different surface treatment. Contemp Clin Dent, 2015, 6: 196-200.
• 24. Celik G, Ismatullaev A, Sari T, Usumez A. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Bonding Composite to Zirconia as a Repair Method. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 2016, 13: 405-411.
• 25. Seabra B, Arantes-Oliveira S, Portugal J. Influence of Multimode Universal Adhesives and Zirconia Primer Application Techniques on Zirconia Repair. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2014, 112: 182-187.
• 26. Fornazari IA, Wille I, Meda EM, Brum RT, Souza EM. Effect of Surface Treatment, Silane, and Universal Adhesive on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanofilled Composite Repairs. Operative Dentistry, 2017, 42: 367-374.