Long-Term Bonding Efficacy of CAD/CAM Hybrid Restorative Materials and Universal Adhesives.
Options
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
38591503
Description
OBJECTIVES
In-office and lab milled prostheses are the staple for indirect restorations. It is therefore critical to determine their long-term bonding durability.
METHODS
CAD/ CAM blocks of two classes of restorative materials: 1) a nano-ceramic reinforced polymer matrix (NCPM) and, 2) a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) were bonded using four different universal adhesives (UA) and silane systems. A lithium disilicate glassceramic (LDS) was used as a reference. The blocks were bisected and bonded with different UA/resin-cement pairs. Bonded blocks were then cut into 1.0x1.0x12.0 mm bar specimens for microtensile bond testing. Half the bars were subjected to bond strength testing immediately and the other half after aging by 50,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to compare mean bond strength among groups.
RESULTS
NCPM presented consistently high bond strength regardless of bonding techniques, while the bond strength of PICN and LDS were lower when bonded with UA relative to traditional silanes. The more hydrophilic UA produced higher bond strengths.
DISCUSSION
Glass-ceramics exhibited lower bond strength with UA than the conventional etch-rinse-silane techniques. However, UAs preserved bonding interface in the long-term.
SIGNIFICANCE
NCPM displayed superior bond strength relative to PICN and LDS regardless of the type of adhesives and bonding techniques.
In-office and lab milled prostheses are the staple for indirect restorations. It is therefore critical to determine their long-term bonding durability.
METHODS
CAD/ CAM blocks of two classes of restorative materials: 1) a nano-ceramic reinforced polymer matrix (NCPM) and, 2) a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) were bonded using four different universal adhesives (UA) and silane systems. A lithium disilicate glassceramic (LDS) was used as a reference. The blocks were bisected and bonded with different UA/resin-cement pairs. Bonded blocks were then cut into 1.0x1.0x12.0 mm bar specimens for microtensile bond testing. Half the bars were subjected to bond strength testing immediately and the other half after aging by 50,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to compare mean bond strength among groups.
RESULTS
NCPM presented consistently high bond strength regardless of bonding techniques, while the bond strength of PICN and LDS were lower when bonded with UA relative to traditional silanes. The more hydrophilic UA produced higher bond strengths.
DISCUSSION
Glass-ceramics exhibited lower bond strength with UA than the conventional etch-rinse-silane techniques. However, UAs preserved bonding interface in the long-term.
SIGNIFICANCE
NCPM displayed superior bond strength relative to PICN and LDS regardless of the type of adhesives and bonding techniques.
Date of Publication
2024-09-01
Publication Type
Article
Keyword(s)
Glass-Ceramic Microtensile Bond Strength Nano-Ceramic Reinforced Polymer Matrix Polymer Infiltrated Ceramic Network Resin Cement Universal Adhesives
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Bashary, N | |
Brewster, J | |
Gill, P | |
Janal, M N | |
Özcan, M | |
Zhang, Y |
Series
European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry EJPRD
Publisher
Hancocks
ISSN
0965-7452
Access(Rights)
metadata.only