The effect of different surface treatments on repair of CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic with resin composite

Yıl 2016, , 121 - 5, 18.08.2016

Özlem Acar

https://doi.org/10.17214/aot.75049

Cited By: 1

Öz

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of novel hybrid ceramic material repaired with a composite resin.

MATERIALS and METHOD: CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic (VITA Enamic) specimens were prepared. The bonding surface was abraded with 600, 800 and 1200 grit SiC papers, and treated with air abrasion of 50 µm alumina particles. The specimens were assigned to four groups (n=12). G1: etching with 34% phosphoric acid + bonding with Adper Single Bond 2, G2: etching with 8% hydrofluoric acid + silane application + bonding with Adper Single Bond 2, G3: etching with 34% phosphoric acid + bonding with Single Bond Universal, G4: etching with 8% hydrofluoric acid + silane application + bonding with Single Bond Universal. Composite resin was build up on pretreated specimens and light-polymerized. The specimens were thermocycled 1000 times between 5±2 °C and 55±2 °C. Shear bond strength test was done by using a universal testing machine at a 1 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were statistically analyzed with One Way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests.

Results: Comparison of the shear bond strength among groups revealed statistically significant differences (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between G1 and G3 (p=0.591). Statistically significant differences were found between G1 and G2 (p=0.024), and G1 and G4 (p=0.013). Adhesive failure was observed in all groups.

Conclusion: Hydrofluoric acid etching reduced the composite resin to hybrid ceramic shear bond strength. Etching with phosphoric acid followed by bonding with Adper Single Bond 2 or Single Bond Universal positively influenced the bond strength of composite resin to hybrid ceramic.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bonding, dental, dental adhesives, dental prosthesis repair

Farklı yüzey hazırlıklarının CAD/CAM hibrit seramiğin kompozit rezin ile tamirine etkisi

Öz

AMAÇ: Çalışmanın amacı yeni nesil materyal olan hibrit-seramiğin kompozit rezin ile makaslama bağlantı dayanımını değerlendirmektir.

GEREÇ ve YÖNTEM: CAD/CAM hibrit-seramik (VITA Enamic) örnekler hazırlandı. Bağlantı yüzeyleri 600, 800 ve 1200 grit SiC kağıtlarla aşındırıldı, ardından 50 µm alumina partikülleri ile yüzey hazırlığı yapıldı. Örnekler dört çalışma grubuna ayrıldı (n=12). G1: %34 fosforik asit ile pürüzlendirme + bağlayıcı ajan (Adper Single Bond 2), G2: %8 hidroflorik asit ile pürüzlendirme + silan uygulaması + bağlayıcı ajan (Adper Single Bond 2), G3: %34 fosforik asit ile pürüzlendirme + bağlayıcı ajan (Single Bond Universal), G4: %8 hidroflorik asitle pürüzlendirme + silan uygulaması + bağlayıcı ajan (Single Bond Universal). Yüzey hazırlığı yapılan örnekler üzerinde kompozit rezin bağlantısı sağlandı ve polimerize edildi. Örneklere 5±2 °C ve 55±2 °C’de 1000 kez ısısal değişim testi uygulandı. Makaslama bağlantı dayanımı testi universal test cihazı ile 1 mm/dak hız ile yapıldı. Veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi ve post-hoc Tukey HSD testleri ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi.

BULGULAR: Gruplar arasında makaslama bağlantı dayanımı istatistiksel olarak farklılık gösterdi (p<0.05). G1 ve G3 arasında istatistiksel fark bulunmadı (p=0.591). G1 ve G2 (p=0.024) ile G1 ve G4 (p=0.013) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık bulundu. Tüm gruplarda adeziv başarısızlık gözlendi.

SONUÇ: Hidroflorik asit ile pürüzlendirme hibrit seramiğin kompozit rezin ile olan makaslama bağlantı dayanımını azalttı. Fosforik asit ile pürüzlendirme ve ardından Adper Single Bond 2 ya da Single Bond Universal uygulaması kompozit rezinin hibrit seramikle olan bağlantı dayanımını olumlu yönde etkiledi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bağlayıcı, dental, dental adezivler, diş protezi tamiri

Kaynakça

• 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
• Lundvall PKR, Ronald HJ, Ekstrand K. Comparison of different etching agents and repair materials used on feldspatic porcelain. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 2009;23:1177-86.
• 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 2015;16:30-6.
• Munoz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P, Hass V, Reis A, Campanha NH, et al. In vitro longevity of bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent 2015;40:282-92.
• Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of different etching periods on the bond strength of a composite resin to a machinable porcelain. J Dent 1998;26:53-8.
• Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:194-203.
• Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012;28:467- 77.
• Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J 2015;34:161-7.
• Mormann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;20:113-25.
• Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. In-vitro strength degradation of dental ceramics and novel PICN material by sharp indentation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;26:34-42.
• Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymerinfiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013;29:419-26.
• Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S. Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material. Open Dent J 2013;7:118-22.
• Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymerinfiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater 2014;30:564-9.
• Vita [Internet]. Available from: http://vitanorthamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ENAMIC-Instructions-for-use.pdf (cited 2013 May 13)
• Oh WS, Shen C. Effect of surface topography on the bond strength of a composite to three different types of ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:241-6.
• Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Papacchini F, Goracci C. Cantoro A. Ferrari M, et al. The effect of different surface treatments on bond strength between leucite reinforced feldspathic ceramic and composite resin. J Dent 2010;38:39-43.
• de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Braz Dent J 2007;18:314-9.
• 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;40:906-12.
• 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;17:409-14.
• Kim BK, Bae HE, Shim JS, Lee KW. The influence of ceramic surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of composite resin to all-ceramic coping materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:357-62.
• 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.
• Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fulimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th edn. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 941.
• Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:503-9.
• Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metalceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;3:86-96.