The Effect of Laser Roughening Method on the Bond Strength between Curent CAD/CAM Hybrid Ceramics and the Repair Material

Abstract

The aim of the study is to examine the effect of different roughening methods used in the repair of current CAD / CAM hybrid ceramic restorations on shear bond strength. Three different types of CAD / CAM blocks were used for this study. Vita Mark II, Vita Suprinity and Vita Enamic. The Blocks were cut with of the ISOMET 5000 device in 14x12x1,5 mm mm and a total of 108 samples were obtained. Then the samples were divided into 3 groups on the surfaces to be bonded with composite resin. Silane was applied to the samples in the first group without any roughening process. Second group samples were roughened with 9% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds and then silane application was made. The samples in the 3rd group were roughened with Er, Cr: YSGG Laser and then silane was applied. All samples in the groups were repaired with composite resin. 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. Then, the samples were subjected to shear test in the universal test device. The resulting data was recorded in the computer in megapascals. Two-way ANOVA variance analysis was used in the SPSS program for statistical analysis. Vita Enamic (17.43 ± 6.71 MPa) Vita Mark II (14.31 ± 2.28MPa), and finally Vita Suprinity (10.58 ± 1.13MPa) showed the highest bond strength value in the control group. The differences between these three blocks are significant (p<0.05). Better bonding is provided with roughening methods and the method should be selected according to the type of material. As the amount of organic filler in the material increases, lower leveling roughening methods may be preferred.

Keywords

• CAD-CAM
• glass ceramics
• shear strength
• dental prosthesis repair

Lazer ile Pürüzlendirme Yönteminin Güncel Cad/Cam Hibrit Seramikler ile Tamir Materyali Arasındaki Bağlantı Dayanımına Etkisi

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı güncel CAD/CAM hibrit seramik restorasyonların tamirinde kullanılan farklı pürüzlendirme yöntemlerinin makaslama bağlantı dayanımına etkisini incelemektir. Bu çalışmada 3 farklı tipte CAD/CAM blok kullanıldı. Vita Mark II, Vita Suprinity ve Vita Enamic. ISOMET 5000 cihazı yardımıyla bloklar; 14x12x1,5 mm olacak şekilde kesildi ve toplamda 108 adet örnek elde edidi. Sırasıyla 600-800-1200 gritlik zımparalar ile yüzey standardizasyonu sağlandı. Daha sonra örnekler kompozit rezin bağlanacak yüzeylerine göre 3 gruba ayrıldı. 1.gruptaki örneklere herhangi bir pürüzlendirme işlemi uygulanmayıp örnek yüzeylerine silan uygulandı. 2.Grup örneklere %9’ luk hidroflorik asit ile 60 saniye pürüzlendirme işlemi uygulandı ve ardından silan uygulaması yapıldı. 3.Gruptaki örneklere Er,Cr:YSGG Lazer ile pürüzlendirme işlemi uygulanıp ardından silan uygulandı. Gruplardaki tüm örnekler kompozit rezin ile tamir edildi. G-aenial Universal Flo Kompozit (GC, Japonya) CAD/CAM blok örneklerinin üzerine 2mm yüksekliğinde ve 4mm çapında plastik kalıplar yardımıyla enjekte edilip LED ışık cihazı ile polimerize edildi. Ardından örnekler üniversal test cihazında makaslama testine tabi tutuldu. Elde edilen veriler bilgisayar ortamında megapaskal cinsinden kaydedildi. İstatistiksel analiz için SPSS programında iki yönlü-ANOVA varyans analizi kulanıldı. Kontrol grubundaki bloklarda en yüksek bağlantı dayanım değerini sırasıyla Vita Enamic (17,43±6,71 MPa) Vita Mark II (14,31±2,28MPa),) son olarak ise Vita Suprinity (10,58±1,13MPa) göstermiştir; bu üç blok arasındaki farklılıklar anlamlıdır (p<0,05). Pürüzlendirme ile Vita Mark II ve Suprinity materyallerinde bağlantı dayanımı anlamlı derecede artarken; Enamic materyalinde lazer ile pürüzlendirmede bağlantı dayanımı düşmektedir (p<0,05). Pürüzlendirme yöntemleri ile daha iyi bağlantı sağlanmakta olup materyal çeşidine göre yöntem seçilmelidir. Materyal içindeki organik doldurucu miktarı arttıkça daha düşük seviyedeki pürüzlendirme yöntemleri tercih edilebilir.

Keywords

• CAD-CAM
• cam seramikler
• kayma mukavemeti
• diş protezi tamiri

References

1. 1. Zhang Y, Kelly JR. Dental ceramics for restoration and metal-veneering. Dent Clin North Am. 2017;61(4):797–819.
2. 2. Baroudi K, Ibraheem SN. Assessment of chair-side computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing restorations: A Review of the Literature. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(4):96–104.
3. 3. Kaizer MR, Moraes RR, Cava SS, Zhang Y.The progressive wear and abrasiveness of novel graded glass/zirconia materials relative to their dental ceramic counterparts. Dent Mater. 2019;35(5):763– 771.
4. 4. Demirel G, Baltacıoğlu İH. İnfluence of different universal adhesives on the repair performance of hybrid CAD/CAM materials. Restor Dent Endod. 2019;44(3): e23.
5. 5. Bahadır H.S, Bayraktar Y. Evaluation of the repair capacities and color stabilities of a resin nanoceramic and hybrid CAD/CAM blocks. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(3):140–149.
6. 6. Abu-Obaid A, AlMawash A, Alyabis N, Alzaaqi N. An in vitro evaluation of the effect of polishing on the stainability of different CAD/CAM ceramic materials. Saudi Dent J. 2020;32(3):135–141.
7. 7. Gul P, Altınok-Uygun L. Repair bond strength of resin composite to three aged CAD/CAM blocks using different repair systems. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(3):131–139.
8. 8. Şişmanoğlu S, Gürcan AT, YıldırımBilmez Z, Turunç-Oğuzman R, Gümüştaş B. Effect of surface treatments and universal adhesive application on the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(1):22–32.

9. 9. 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 resin-ceramic hybrid materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8(4):259–266.
10. 10. Papadopoulos K, Pahinis K, Saltidou K, Dionysopoulos D, Tsitrou E. Evaluation of the surface characteristics of dental CAD/CAM materials after different surface treatments. Materials. 2020;13(4):981.
11. 11. Ataol AS, Ergun G. Repair bond strength of resin composite to bilayer dental ceramics. Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(2):101–112.
12. 12. Sadighpour L, Geramipanah F, Ghasri Z, Neshatian M. Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymerceramics to different adhesive resin cements. Restor Dent Endod. 2018;43(4):e40.
13. 13. Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15(5):625– 633.
14. 14. Kiomarsi N, Espahbodi M, Chiniforush N, Karazifard MJ, Kamangar SSH. In vitro evaluation of repair bond strength of composite: Effect of surface treatments with bur and laser and application of universal adhesive. Laser Ther. 2017;26(3):173–180.
15. 15. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57:236–61.
16. 16. Dos Santos J. G, Fonseca R. G, Adabo G. L, Dos Santos Cruz C.A. Shear bond strength of metal-ceramic repair systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(3):165–173.
17. 17. Filho AM, Vieira LC, Araujo E, Monteiro JS. Effect of different ceramic surfacetreatments on resin microtensile bond strength. J Prosthodont. 2004;13(1):28-35.
18. 18. Reston E.G, Filho S.C, Arossi G, Cogo R.B, Rocha C, Dos S, Closs L.Q. Repairing ceramic restorations: final solution or alternative procedure? Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):461-466.
19. 19. 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(11):906- 912.
20. 20. Keul C, Müller-Hahl M, Eichberger M, Liebermann A, Roos M, Edelhoff D, 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.
21. 21. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 2000;79(6):1385–91.
22. 22. 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.
23. 23. Cobb DS, Vargas MA, Fridrich TA, Bouschlicher MR. Metal surface treatment: characterization and effect on compositeto-metal bond strength. Oper Dent. 2000;25(5):427-33
24. 24. Knight JS, Holmes JR, Bradford H, Lawson C. Shear bond strengths of composite bonded to porcelain using porcelain repair systems. Am J Dent. 2003;16(4):252-4.
25. 25. Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of etchant, etching period, and silane priming on bond strength to porcelain of composite resin. Oper Dent. 1998;23(5):250-7.
26. 26. Peumans M, Hikita K, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P ve ark. 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.
27. 27. Cavalcanti AN, Pilecki P, Foxton RM, Watson TF, Oliveira MT, Gianinni M ve ark. Evaluation of the surface roughness and morphologic features of Y-TZP ceramics after different surface treatments. Photomed Laser Surg. 2009;27(3):473-9.
28. 28. Azer SS, Drummond JL, Stephen D. Campbell. Influence of core buildup material on the fatigue strength of an allceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(6):624-631.
29. 29. Shiu P, De Souza-Zaroni WC, Eduardo CP, Youssef MN. Effect of feldspathic ceramic surface treatments on bond strength to resin cement. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007;25(4):291-6.
30. 30. 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.
31. 31. Elsaka S. Bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to selfadhesive resin cement:the effect of surface treatments. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(6):531– 40.
32. 32. Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater. 2014;30(7):147–162.
33. 33. 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.
34. 34. 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.
35. 35. 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):71-8.