Influence of different repair protocols and artificial aging on bond strength of composite to a CAD/CAM polymer-infiltrated ceramic

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 37 - 46, 24.02.2021

Ece İrem Oğuz Gökhan Çiçekci

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.802118

Cited By: 1

Öz

Abstract
Objectives: The repair bond strength of the composite to a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) restoration may vary depending on the repair protocol used and may decrease over time. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different repair protocols and artificial aging on shear bond strength (SBS) of a composite for repair to PICN material.
Materials and methods: Artificially aged specimens (5000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C) sliced from PICN CAD/CAM blocks (Vita Enamic) were randomly divided into 5 groups according to the repair protocol applied: 1) TS: tribochemical silica coating-Single Bond Universal 2) ES: etching with hydrofluoric acid (HF)-Single Bond Universal 3) EU: etching with HF-Ultradent Porcelain Repair System 4) GU: grinding with diamond bur-Ultradent Porcelain Repair System 5) GI: grinding with diamond bur-Ivoclar Vivadent Ceramic Repair System. After receiving a composite resin cylinder for repair, specimens were further divided into 2 subgroups considering artificial aging procedure (n=12): baseline/aging (5000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C). SBS tests were performed by using a universal testing machine and failure types were classified as cohesive failure in PICN, cohesive failure in composite, adhesive, and mixed. The SBS data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA,factorial ANOVA, least signifigance difference, and Duncan tests (α=0.05). Failure modes were calculated as a percentage.
Results: The mean SBSs for ES and GU were higher than TS at baseline (p<0.05). After aging procedure, EU and GU showed lower SBS than ES (p<0.05). Aging decreased the SBS for ES, EU and GU compared to baseline (p<0.05). The failure modes in general were observed as cohesive in PICN at baseline, while the only group that showed cohesive failure predominantly was EU after aging.
Conclusions: Considering the time-efficiency and effectiveness, etching with HF followed by Single Bond Universal application can be recommended as the intraoral repair protocol for PICN.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CAD/CAM,, dental restoration repair, shear strength, composite resins

Teşekkür

The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. Ensar Baspinar who performed the statistical analyses of this study and Mustafa Yeşil for his assistance as the laboratory technician.

Farklı onarım protokollerinin ve yapay yaşlandırmanın kompozitin polimer-infiltre seramik ağ materyaline bağlanma kuvvetine etkisi

Öz

Özet
Amaç: Polimer-infiltre seramik ağ (PICN) restorasyonun kompozit ile onarımında bağlantı gücü uygulanan onarım protokolüne bağlı olarak değişebilir ve zamanla azalabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı onarım protokollerinin ve yapay yaşlandırmanın PICN malzemesine onarım için kullanılan kompozitin kayma bağlantı dayanımı (SBS) üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: PICN CAD/CAM bloklardan (Vita Enamic) kesilerek elde edilen ve yapay olarak yaşlandırılan (5°C ile 55°C arasında 5000 termal döngü) numuneler uygulanan onarım protokolüne göre rastgele 5 gruba ayrıldı: 1) TS: tribokimyasal silika kaplama & Single Bond Universal, 2) ES: hidroflorik asit (HF) ile pürüzlendirme- Single Bond Universal; 3) EU: HF ile pürüzlendirme- Ultradent Porselen Onarım Sistemi 4) GU: elmas frez ile aşındırma- Ultradent Porselen Onarım Sistemi; 5) GI: elmas frezle aşındırma- Ivoclar Vivadent Porselen Onarım Sistemi. Onarım için kompozit rezin silindirinin uygulanmasının ardından örnekler yapay yaşlandırma prosedürü dikkate alınarak 2 alt gruba (n = 12) ayrıldı: başlangıç / yaşlandırma (5°C ile 55°C arasında 5000 termal döngü). SBS testleri universal test cihazı kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi ve başarısızlık tipleri PICN içinde kohezif, kompozit içinde kohezif, adezif ve karışık olarak sınıflandırıldı. SBS verileri istatistiksel olarak tek yönlü ANOVA, faktöryel ANOVA, asgari önemli fark ve Duncan testleri ile analiz edildi. (α=0.05) Başarısızlık modları, her grup için yüzde olarak hesaplandı.
Bulgular: ES ve GU için ortalama SBS değerleri, başlangıçta TS'den daha yüksekti (p<0.05). Yaşlandırma prosedüründen sonra EU ve GU, ES'den daha düşük SBS gösterdi (p<0.05). Yaşlandırma prosedürü ES, EU ve GU için SBS'yi başlangıca kıyasla azalttı (p<0.05). Genel olarak başarısızlık modları başlangıçta PICN içinde kohezif olarak gözlenirken, yaşlandırmadan sonra ağırlıklı olarak kohezif başarısızlık gösteren tek grup EU idi.
Sonuçlar: Zaman verimliliği ve etkinlik göz önüne alındığında, HF ile aşındırmanın ardından Single Bond Universal uygulaması PICN için ağız içi onarım protokolü olarak önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CAD/CAM, dental restorasyon onarımı, kayma mukavemeti, bileşik rezinler

Kaynakça

• 1. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60:72-84.
• 2. Ustun O, Buyukhatipoglu IK, Secilmis A. Shear bond strength of repair systems to new CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthodont 2018;27:748-754.
• 3. Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:587-593.
• 4. Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M, Iwasaki N, Asakawa Y, Oki M, et al. Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J 2014;33:705-710.
• 5. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1141-1150.
• 6. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013;29:419-426.
• 7. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J 2015;34:161-167.
• 8. Nguyen JF, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 2012;28:529-534.
• 9. Silva P, Martinelli-Lobo CM, Bottino MA, Melo RM, Valandro LF. Bond strength between a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network and a composite for repair: effect of several ceramic surface treatments. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:e28.
• 10. Nguyen JF, Ruse D, Phan AC, Sadoun MJ. High-temperature-pressure polymerized resin-infiltrated ceramic networks. J Dent Res 2014;93:62-67.
• 11. Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater 2014;30:564-569.
• 12. Al-Turki L, Merdad Y, Abuhaimed TA, Sabbahi D, Almarshadi M, Aldabbagh R. Repair bond strength of dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured ceramics after different surface treatments. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020; Online ahead of print.
• 13. Ramos Nde C, Campos TM, Paz IS, Machado JP, Bottino MA, Cesar PF, et al. Microstructure characterization and SCG of newly engineered dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2016;32:870-878.
• 14. Subasi MG, Alp G. Repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:364-370.
• 15. Hickel R, Brushaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations--criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater 2013;29:28-50.
• 16. Reston EG, Filho SC, Arossi G, Cogo RB, Rocha Cdos S, Closs LQ. Repairing ceramic restorations: final solution or alternative procedure? Oper Dent 2008;33:461-466.
• 17. 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.
• 18. Queiroz JR, Souza RO, Nogueira Junior L, Jr., Ozcan M, Bottino MA. Influence of acid-etching and ceramic primers on the repair of a glass ceramic. Gen Dent 2012;60:e79-85.
• 19. Sismanoglu S, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Erten-Taysi A, Ercal P. Influence of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the repair of CAD-CAM composite resins: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:238 e231-238 e239.
• 20. Verissimo AH, Duarte Moura DM, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Bottino MA, de Fatima Dantas de Almeida L, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A, et al. Effect of different repair methods on the bond strength of resin composite to CAD/CAM materials and microorganisms adhesion: An in situ study. J Dent 2020;93:103266.
• 21. Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie 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.
• 22. Arpa C, Ceballos L, Fuentes MV, Perdigao J. Repair bond strength and nanoleakage of artificially aged CAD-CAM composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:523-530.
• 23. Ozcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GA, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 2007;23:1276-1282.
• 24. Loomans BA, Mesko ME, Moraes RR, Ruben J, Bronkhorst EM, Pereira-Cenci T, et al. Effect of different surface treatment techniques on the repair strength of indirect composites. J Dent 2017;59:18-25.
• 25. Ho GW, Matinlinna JP. Evaluation of the Microtensile Bond Strength between Resin Composite and Hydrofluoric Acid Etched Ceramic in Different Storage Media. 2011;25:2671-2685.
• 26. Ho GW, Matinlinna JP. Insights on Ceramics as Dental Materials. Part II: Chemical Surface Treatments. 2011;3:117-123.
• 27. Campos F, Almeida CS, Rippe MP, de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Resin Bonding to a Hybrid Ceramic: Effects of Surface Treatments and Aging. Oper Dent 2016;41:171-178.
• 28. Wu X, Xie H, Meng H, Yang L, Chen B, Chen Y, et al. Effect of tribochemical silica coating or multipurpose products on bonding performance of a CAD/CAM resin-based material. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;90:417-425.
• 29. Sismanoglu S, Gurcan AT, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Turunc-Oguzman R, Gumustas B. Effect of surface treatments and universal adhesive application on the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12:22-32.
• 30. Javidi H, Tickle M, Aggarwal VR. Repair vs replacement of failed restorations in general dental practice: factors influencing treatment choices and outcomes. British Dental Journal 2015;218:e2.
• 31. Demirel G, Baltacioglu IH. Influence of different universal adhesives on the repair performance of hybrid CAD-CAM materials. Restor Dent Endod 2019;44:e23.
• 32. Elkassas D, Haridy M, Zaghloul H. Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks. 2014;8:44.
• 33. Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Aguilera FS, Yamauti M, Pashley DH, et al. Durability of resin-dentin bonds: effects of direct/indirect exposure and storage media. Dent Mater 2007;23:885-892.