ÜÇ FARKLI YAPIDAKİ CAD/CAM MATERYALLER İLE KOMPOZİT REZİNLER ARASINDA OLUŞAN BAĞLANTININ İNCELENMESİ

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 78 - 84, 28.08.2024

Rümeysa Angın , Neslihan Tekçe

https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1300414

Abstract

Amaç: Üç farklı yapıdaki CAD/CAM materyallerle bu materyallerin tamirinde kullanılan akışkan/tepilebilir kompozit rezinler arasında oluşan bağlantı dayanımının değerlendirilmesidir.
Yöntem: IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar), Cerasmart (GC), Vita Enamic (Vita Zahnfabric) CAD/CAM materyallerden (7×7×2 mm) hazırlanan örnekler, otopolimerizan akrilikle sabitlendi (n=10). Örneklerin üst yüzeyleri 600-1200 SIC zımparayla 60 sn zımparalandı. Örnek yüzeyleri yeşil kuşaklı elmas frezle 10 sn pürüzlendirildi. Hazırlanan CAD/CAM yüzeylere G-Aenial Posterior (GC) veya G-Aenial Universal Flo (GC) 2-mm yüksekliğinde üretici firma önerileri doğrultusunda uygulandı. Tüm CAD/CAM yüzeylerde silan olarak G-Multi Primer; bonding ajan olarak G-2 Bond Universal kullanıldı. Tüm CAD/CAM yüzeylerinde kompozitler bir teflon kalıp kullanılarak tepildi ve polimerize edildi. Örneklere bağlanma dayanım testi (Shear Bond Test) uygulandı. Örnek yüzeyleri stereomikroskop altında incelenilerek kırılma tipleri belirlendi. Başarısızlık tipleri adeziv/CAD/CAM koheziv/kompozit koheziv/miks olarak sınıflandırıldı. Veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve Tukey HSD testi kullanılarak analiz edildi (P < .05). Kırılma tipleri Ki-kare testi kullanılarak değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: CAD/CAM materyaller arası kıyaslamada, Vita Enamic ve Cerasmart yüzeylerinde benzer bağlanma dayanım değerleri elde edildi, IPS e.max CAD’de ise diğer CAD/CAM materyallereden daha düşük bağlanma dayanım değerleri elde edildi. G-Aenial Posterior veya G-Aenial Universal Flo’nun CAD/CAM yüzeylere bağlanması arasında benzer değerler tespit edildi. Kırılma tipi değerlendirilmesinde, IPS e.max CAD materyalinde adeziv tipte kırılma, Vita Enamic ve Cerasmart materyalinde ise CAD/CAM koheziv tipte kırılmalar görüldü.
Sonuç: Tamirde kullanılan kompozit rezinlerin, rezin bazlı CAD/CAM materyallere bağlanması seramik yapıdaki CAD/CAM materyaline bağlanmadan daha iyidir. Her iki kompozit rezinde tamir prosedüründe kullanılabilir.

Keywords

Kompozit, CAD/CAM, Bağlanma

INVESTIGATION OF THE BOND STRENGTH BETWEEN THREE DIFFERENT STRUCTURE CAD/CAM MATERIALS AND COMPOSITE RESINS

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the bond strength between CAD/CAM materials in three different structures and the flowable or paste composite resins used in their repair.
Method: Samples prepared IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar)/Cerasmart (GC)/Vita Enamic (Vita Zahnfabric) CAD/CAM materials (7×7×2 mm) were fixed with autopolymerizing acrylic. A total of 60 samples were prepared (n=10). The surfaces of the samples were sanded with 600-1200 SIC sandpaper for 60 seconds. The sample surfaces were roughened with a green belted diamond bur for 10 seconds. The samples were first divided into 3 groups as IPS e.max CAD/Vita Enamic/Cerasmart. Each separated group was divided into 2 subgroups as G-Aenial Posterior (GC)/G-Aenial Universal Flo (GC) according to the type of resin. A silane G-Multi Primer (GC) and a bonding G-2 Bond Universal (GC) were applied to all sample surfaces at the manufacturer's recommendation. The repair process was completed with a packable/flowable composite using a mold on the sample surfaces. Bond strength test was performed on the samples. Fracture types were determined by looking at the sample surfaces under a stereomicroscope. Failure types were classified and recorded as adhesive/CAD/CAM cohesive/composite cohesive/mixed. Data were analyzed with one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests (P < .05). Fracture types were evaluated using the Chi-square test.
Result: In comparison between CAD/CAM materials; Vita Enamic/Cerasmart had similar MPa values, but lower MPa values for IPS e.max CAD than other CAD/CAM materials. Similar binding values were determined between G-Aenial Posterior/G-Aenial Universal Flo used in the repair of Cerasmart/IPS e.max CAD/Vita Enamic materials. In the evaluation of the fracture type; Adhesive type breakage was observed in IPS e.max CAD material, CAD/CAM cohesive type breakage was observed in Vita Enamic/Cerasmart material.
Conclusions: The bonding of composite resins used for repair to resin-based CAD/CAM materials is better than bonding to ceramic CAD/CAM materials. The use of a touchable composite or flowable composite is similar in repairing resin-based CAD/CAM materials.

Keywords

Composite, CAD/CAM, Adhesion

References

• 1. Polat Sağsöz N, Bayındır Y, Cantürk K, Karalar B, Seven N, Sağsöz Ö. Farklı üniversal bağlayıcı ajanların cad/cam seramiklerin kompozit rezin ile tamiri sonrası bağlanma kuvvetine etkisi. Atatürk Üni Diş Hek Faki Derg. 2019;29(3):381-86.
• 2. Gracis S, Thompson V, Ferencz J, Silva N, Bonfante E. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(3):227-35.
• 3. Blatz MB, Conejo J. The current state of chairside digital dentistry and materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63(2):175-97.
• 4. Kimyai S, Oskoee SS, Mohammadi N, Rikhtegaran S, Bahari M, Oskoee PA, Vahedpour H. Effect of different mechanical and chemical surface treatments on the repaired bond strength of an indirect composite resin. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(2):653-59.
• 5. Neis CA, Albuquerque NLG, de Souza Albuquerque I, 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(2):152-55.
• 6. Özcan M. Fracture reasons in ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(3):265-69.
• 7. Matinlinna JP, Lung CYK, Tsoi JKH. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: A review. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):13-28.
• 8. Lundvall PK, Ruyter E, Rønold HJ, Ekstrand K. Comparison of different etching agents and repair materials used on feldspathic porcelain. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2012;23(7-8):1177-86.
• 9. Sadeghi M, Davari A, Mahani AA, Hakimi H. Influence of different power outputs of er:yag laser on shear bond strength of a resin composite to feldspathic porcelain. J Dent. 2015;16(1):30-6.
• 10. 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(2):196-200.
• 11. Papia E, Larsson C, Du Toit M, Von Steyern PV. Bonding between oxide ceramics and adhesive cement systems: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014;102(2):395-413.
• 12. Reston EG, Filho SC, Arossi G, Cogo RB, Rocha CS, Closs LQ. Repairing ceramic restorations: final solution or alternative procedure? Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):461-66.
• 13. Nguyen JF, Ruse D, Phan AC, Sadoun MJ. Hightemperature-pressure Polymerized Resin-infiltrated Ceramic Networks. J Dent Res. 2014;93(1):62.
• 14. Kimmich M, Stappert CFJ. Intraoral treatment of veneering porcelain chipping of fixed dental restorations: a review and clinical application. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(1):31-44.
• 15. Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Sonoda A, Maruo Y, Makita Y, Okihara T, Irie M, Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B. Effectiveness and stability of silane coupling agent incorporated in “universal” adhesives. Dent Mater. 2016;32(10):1218-1225.
• 16.https://www.gc.dental/europe/sites/europe.gc.dental /files/products/downloads/g2bonduniversal/ifu/IFU_g 2bonduniversal_W.pdf. (Erişim tarihi: 02.03.2024)
• 17. Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26(6):382-93.
• 18. Hatirli H, Karaarslan Eş, Tekiroğlu Yelken Z, Tonga G, Demir O. Hibrid seramik ve kompozit rezin bağlanma dayanımında, farklı yüzey hazırlıkları ve üniversal adeziv uygulamalarının etkisi. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2020;26(3):443-49.
• 19. Ellakwa AE, Shortall AC, Burke FJ, Marquis PM. Effects of grit blasting and silanization on bond strengths of a resin luting cement to Belleglass HP indirect composite. Am J Dent. 2003;16(1):53-7.