CAD/CAM Restorasyonların Tamirinde Uygulanan Farklı Yöntemlerin Bağlanma Dayanımına Etkisi

Year 2024, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 294 - 307, 10.05.2024

Tamer Yıldırım Nihan Gonulol

https://doi.org/10.58711/turkishjdentres.vi.1435851

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı CAD/CAM restorasyonların tamirinde kullanılan farklı yöntemlerin etkinliğini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma için 3 farklı tipte, A2 renginde
CAD/CAM blok kullanılmıştır. Block HC (Shofu), Cerasmart (GC) ve Cerec Blok (DentsplySirona) bloklar 5×5×5 mm olacak şekilde kesilmiş ve toplamda 300 adet örnek elde edilmiştir. Ardından örnekler 5 ile 55°C arasında 5000 defa termal siklusa tabi tutularak yaşlandırma işlemi yapılmıştır. Daha sonra örnekler, kompozit rezin bağlanacak yüzeylerine uygulanacak işlemlere göre 5 alt gruba ayrılmıştır; Grup
CT=Clearfil Tamir Kiti, Grup UT=Ultradent Tamir Kiti, Grup EF= Elmas Frez ile pürüzlendirme + GC Tamir Kiti, Grup EL=Er-YAG Lazer ile pürüzlendirme + GC Tamir Kiti, Grup KC=Micro etcher ağız içi kumlama cihazı ile pürüzlendirme + GC Tamir Kiti. Gruplar tekrar 2’şer alt gruba ayrılarak, CAD/CAM blok örneklerinin üzerine 2 mm yüksekliğinde ve 4 mm çapında plastik kalıpların içine G-aenial Hibrit Kompozit veya G-aenial Universal Flo Kompozit kondanse edilip LED ışık cihazı ile polimerize edilmiştir. Ardından örnekler makaslama testine tabi tutulup, kompozit ile CAD/CAM materyal ara yüzündeki kopmalar adeziv, koheziv ve mixed kırılmalar olmak üzere sınıflandırılmak için 20x büyütmeli stereomikroskop altında incelenmiştir.
Bulgular: Grup KC, Grup UT dışında tüm gruplardan anlamlı olarak daha yüksek bağlanma dayanım değerleri göstermiştir. G-aenial Universal Flo, G-aenial hibrit kompozitten anlamlı olarak daha yüksek bağlantı dayanımı göstermiştir.
Sonuç: Yüzey işlemleri arasında kumlama ile pürüzlendirme
en yüksek bağlantı dayanım değerlerini göstermişir. G-aenial
Universal Flo, CAD/CAM restorasyonların tamirinde başarıyla
kullanılabilir.

Keywords

CAD/CAM restorasyonlar, mikro makaslama bağlantı dayanımı, restorasyon tamiri

Ethical Statement

BU ÇALIŞMA İÇİN ETİK KURUL ONAYI GEREKMEMEKTEDİR.

Supporting Institution

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu Başkanlığı

Project Number

PYO.DIS. 1904.18.009

The Effect of Different Repair Systems on the Repair Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Restorations

Abstract

Aim: The aim of our study is to compare the effectiveness of different methods used in the repair of CAD / CAM restorations.
Material and Method: Three different types of CAD / CAM blocks were used for this study. Block HC (Shofu), Ceresmart (GC) and Cerec Block (DentsplySirona) blocks were cut in 5 × 5 × 5 mm and a total of 300 samples were obtained. The samples were then subjected to 5000 cycles of thermal cycling between 5 and 55 ° C for aging. Five different surface conditioning methods were applied to the samples before bonding to the composite resin; Group CT: Clearfil Repair Kit, Group UT: Ultradent Repair Kit, Group EF: Diamond Bur + GC Repair Kit, Group EL: Er-YAG Laser + GC Repair Kit, Group KC: Micro etcher intra-oral sand blasting device + GC Repair Kit. The groups were divided into 2 subgroups and bonded with two different composite resins; G-aenial Hybrid Composite or G-aenial Universal Flo Composite. Plastic molds
(2 mm high x 4 mm diameter) were inserted on top of CAD / CAM block samples and polymerized with a LED light curing unit. The samples were then subjected to shear testing and the failure modes were examined under a 20x magnification in a stereomicroscope to classify them as adhesive, cohesive and
mixed fractures.
Results: The shear bond values of Cerec bloks were significantly higher than the other blocks (p<0.05). When surface treatments were compared, Group KC showed significantly higher bond strength values than all groups except Group UT. Compared to the repair materials, G-aenial Universal Flo showed significantly higher bond strength than G-aenial hybrid composite.
Conclusion: The sandblasting system can be recommended
for the repair of all type of CAD/CAM bloks tested in this study.
The G-aenial Universal Flo seems to be a succesful repairing
material for the repair of CAD/CAM materials.

Keywords

CAD/CAM restorations, Micro shear bond strength test, repair of restorations

Project Number

PYO.DIS. 1904.18.009

References

• Graiff L, Piovan C, Vigolo P, Mason PN. Shear bond strength between feldspathic CAD/CAM ceramic and human dentine for two adhesive cements J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 294-299.
• Peumans M, Hikita K, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P,et al. Effects of ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength of an adhesive luting agent to CAD-CAM ceramic. J Dent. 2007;35(4):282–8.
• Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, et al. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015;28(3).
• Wang YG, Xing YX, Sun YC, et al:Preliminary evaluation of clinical effect of computer aided design and computer aided manufacture zirconis crown. Ch J Stomatol 2013; 48:355-358.
• Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fulimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th edn. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 941.
• Neis CA, Albuquerque NL, Albuquerque Ide S, Gomes EA, SouzaFilho CB, Feitosa VP, et al. Surface treatments for repair of feldspathic, leucite - and lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramics using composite resin. Braz Dent J 2015;26:152-5.
• Panah FG, Rezai SM, Ahmadian L. The influence of ceramic surface treatments on the micro-shear bond strength of composite resin to IPS Empress 2. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 409-414.
• Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 119- 124.
• Filho AM, Vieira LC, Araujo E, Monteiro Junior S. Effect of different ceramic surfacetreatments on resin microtensile bond strength. J Prosthodont 2004; 13: 28-35.
• Blum IR, Nikolinakos N, Lynch CD, Wilson NH, Millar BJ, Jagger DC. An in vitro comparison of four intra-oral ceramic repair systems. J Dent 2012; 40: 906-912.
• Dos Santos, J. G., Fonseca, R. G., Adabo, G. L. and dos Santos Cruz, C. A. Shear bond strength of metal-ceramic repair systems. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96(3), 165–173.
• Keul, C., Müller-Hahl, M., Eichberger, M., Liebermann, A., Roos, M., Edelhoff, D., and Stawarczyk, B. Impact of different adhesives on work of adhesion between CAD/CAM polymers and resin composite cements. J Dent 2014; 42(9), 1105–14.
• Valandro LF, Ozcan M, Bottino MC, Bottino MA, Scotti R, Bona AD. Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: the effect of surface conditioning. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(3):175-81.
• Cobb DS, Vargas MA, Fridrich TA, Bouschlicher MR. Metal surface treatment: characterization and effect on composite-tometal bond strength. Oper Dent 2000;25(5):427-33.
• Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strengths of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72(4):355-9.
• Cavalcanti AN, Pilecki P, Foxton RM, Watson TF, Oliveira MT, Gianinni M, et al. Evaluation of the surface roughness and morphologic features of Y-TZP ceramics after different surface treatments. Photomed Laser Surg 2009;27(3):473-9.
• White SN, Zhao XY, Zhaokun Y, Li ZC. Cyclic mechanical fatique of a feldspathic dental porcelain. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(5):413-20.
• Shiu P, De Souza-Zaroni WC, Eduardo Cde P, Youssef MN. Effect of feldspathic ceramic surface treatments on bond strength to resin cement. Photomed Laser Surg 2007;25(4):291-6.
• El-Damanhoury H, Haj-Ali R, Platt J. Fracture Resistance and Microleakage of Endocrowns Utilizing Three CAD-CAM Blocks. Oper Dent 2015;40(1):1–10.
• Elsaka S. Bond Strength of Novel CAD/CAM Restorative Materials to Self- Adhesive Resin Cement:The Effect of Surface Treatments. J Adhes Dent 2014;16:531–40.
• Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2014, 30(7):e147–e162.
• Blum, I., Nikolinakos, N., Lynch, C., Wilson, N., Millar, B. and Jagger, D. An in vitro comparison of four intra-oral ceramic repair systems. J Dent 2012; 40(11), 906–912.
• El Zohairy A, de Gee A, Mohsen M, Feilzer A. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater. 2003;19(7):575–83.
• Hofu Block / Disk HC, CAD / CAM Ceramic-based Restorative. http://www.shofu.com.sg/downloads/pdf/ Shofu%20Block_Disk%20HC.pdf.
• Phark JH, Duarte S, Jr., Blatz M, Sadan A. An in vitro evaluation of the long-term resin bond to a new densely sintered high-purity zirconium-oxide ceramic surface. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(1):29-38.
• Strasser, T., Preis, V., Behr, M., & Rosentritt, M. Roughness, surface energy, and superficial damages of CAD/ CAM materials after surface treatment. Clin Oral Invest 2018;22(8):2787-2797.
• Barutcigil K, Barutcigil C, Kul E, Ozarslan M, Buyukkaplan U. Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Resin Cement to a CAD/CAM Restorative Material. J Prosthodont. 2019 ;28(1):71-78.
• Qeblawi DM, Muñoz CA, Brewer JD, Monaco EA Jr. The effect of zirconia surface treatment on flexural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 210-20.
• Attia A. Influence of surface treatment and cyclic loading on the durability of repaired all-ceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(2):194-200.
• Kassotakis E, Stavridakis M, Bortolotto T, Ardu S, Krejci I. Evaluation of the Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Luting CAD/CAM Composite Resin Overlay Workpieces. J Adhes Dent. 2015;16(6):521–8.
• Frankenberger R, Hartmann V, Krech M, Krämer N, Reich S, Braun A, et al. Adhesive luting of new CAD/ CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18:9– 20.
• Bankoğlu Güngör M, Karakoca Nemli S, Turhan Bal B, Ünver S, Doğan A. Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to CAD/ CAM resinceramic hybrid materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8:259– 66.
• Duzyol M, Sagsoz O, Polat Sagsoz N, Akgul N, Yıldiz M. The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM Blocks and Composite Resin. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(6):466–71.
• Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Lie N. Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:299–308.
• Erdemir, U., Sancakli, H. S., Sancakli, E., Eren, M. M., Ozel, S., Yucel, T., & Yildiz, E. Shear bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin for lithium disilicate-reinforced CAD/CAM ceramic material. The J Adv Prosthodont 2014, 6(6), 434-443.
• Atsu SS, Kilicarslan MA, Kucukesmen HC, Aka PS. Effect of zirconium-oxide ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength to adhesive resin. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95(6):430-6.
• Magne P, Paranhos MP, Burnett LH, Jr. New zirconia primer improves bond strength of resin-based cements. Dent Mater 2010;26(4):345-52.
• Cavalcanti AN, Foxton RM, Watson TF, Oliveira MT, Giannini M, Marchi GM. Bond strength of resin cements to a zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments. Oper Dent 2009;34(3):280-7.
• Gokce B, Ozpinar B, Dundar M, Comlekoglu E, Sen BH, Gungor MA. Bond strengths of all-ceramics: acid vs laser etching. Oper Dent 2007;32(2):173-8.
• Akyil MS, Yilmaz A, Karaalioglu OF, Duymus ZY. Shear bond strength of repair composite resin to an acid-etched and a laser-irradiated feldspathic ceramic surface. Photomed Laser Surg 2010;28(4):539-45.
• Çelik, E., Sahin, S. C., & Dede, D. Ö. Shear Bond Strength of Nanohybrid Composite to the Resin Matrix Ceramics After Different Surface Treatments. Photomed Laser Surg 2018; 36(8), 424-430.
• 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.
• Kimmich M, Stappert CF. Intraoral treatment of veneering porcelain chipping of fixed dental restorations: a review and clinical application. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:31-44.
• Özcan M. Evaluation of alternative intraoral repair techniques for fractured ceramic fused to metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(2):194-203.
• Jain, S., Parkash, H., Gupta, S. and Bhargava, A. To evaluate the effect of various surface treatments on the shear bond strength of three different intraoral ceramic repair systems: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013, 13(3), 315–320.
• Carrabba, M., Vichi, A., Louca, C., & Ferrari, M. Comparison of traditional and simplified methods for repairing CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramics. The J adv Prosthodont 2017, 9(4), 257- 264.
• Frankenberger, R., Krämer, N., Ebert, J., Lohbauer, U., Käppel, S., & Petschelt, A. Fatigue behavior of the resin-resin bond of partially replaced resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent 2003; 16(1), 17-22.
• Ivanovas, S., Hickel, R., & Ilie, N. How to repair fillings made by silorane-based composites. Clil Oral Invest 2011, 15(6), 915-922.
• van der Vyver PJ, de Wet FA, Botha SJ. Shear bond strength of five porcelain repair systems on cerec porcelain. SADJ 2005;60:196-8.