Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Repair Bond Strength of a CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Resin and Direct Composite Resin: Effect of Aging and Surface Conditioning Methods


Moura, Dayanne Monielle Duarte; Dal Piva, Amanda Maria de Oliveira; do Nascimento Januário, Ana Beatriz; Verissímo, Aretha Heitor; Bottino, Marco Antonio; Özcan, Mutlu; Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção (2020). Repair Bond Strength of a CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Resin and Direct Composite Resin: Effect of Aging and Surface Conditioning Methods. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 22(3):275-283.

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the effect of surface conditioning methods and aging on the repair bond strength between resin composite and nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-four blocks of nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin (NCR) (Lava Ultimate, 3M Oral Care) (10 x 5 x 2 mm3) and resin composite (Filtek Z350, 3M Oral Care) (RC) were made, embedded in acrylic resin, polished (#600, #800, #1200) and randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 12 each) according to surface conditioning methods (air abrasion with 30-μm CoJet [CJ] or air abrasion with 50-μm Al2O3 [AB]) and aging prior to repair (without aging, 24 h in water at 37°C; with aging 6 months in water at 37°C). The blocks were air abraded (20 s, 2.5 bar, 10 mm) using a standardized device. A layer of adhesive resin (Scotchbond Universal) was applied (20 s) and photopolymerized for 20 s. RC cylinders (Ø = 2 mm; h = 2 mm) were then bonded to the NCR substrates using a Teflon matrix and photopolymerized for 40 s. All specimens were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5°C-55°C) and submitted to the shear bond test (50 kgf, 0.5 mm/min) to measure repair strength. Data (MPa) were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Failure analysis was performed using stereomicroscopy (20X).
RESULTS
ANOVA revealed a significant effect of only the "material" factor (p = 0.00). The group NCR6mCJ presented bond strengths (29.37 ± 5.41) which were significantly higher than those of the NCR24hCJ (20.88 ± 5.74) and RC groups (p < 0.05). The group RC24hCJ (19.71 ± 4.21) presented the lowest shear bond strength (p < 0.05). Failure analysis revealed predominantly type B mixed failures (adhesive+cohesive in the substrate material) except for the groups NCR24hCJ and NCR6mAB, where mainly type C failure (adhesive+cohesive at the RC) was observed.
CONCLUSION
Air abrasion with Al2O3 particles or silicatization with CoJet followed by adhesive resin application are effective surface conditioning methods for the repair of nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin with resin composite.

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the effect of surface conditioning methods and aging on the repair bond strength between resin composite and nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-four blocks of nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin (NCR) (Lava Ultimate, 3M Oral Care) (10 x 5 x 2 mm3) and resin composite (Filtek Z350, 3M Oral Care) (RC) were made, embedded in acrylic resin, polished (#600, #800, #1200) and randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 12 each) according to surface conditioning methods (air abrasion with 30-μm CoJet [CJ] or air abrasion with 50-μm Al2O3 [AB]) and aging prior to repair (without aging, 24 h in water at 37°C; with aging 6 months in water at 37°C). The blocks were air abraded (20 s, 2.5 bar, 10 mm) using a standardized device. A layer of adhesive resin (Scotchbond Universal) was applied (20 s) and photopolymerized for 20 s. RC cylinders (Ø = 2 mm; h = 2 mm) were then bonded to the NCR substrates using a Teflon matrix and photopolymerized for 40 s. All specimens were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5°C-55°C) and submitted to the shear bond test (50 kgf, 0.5 mm/min) to measure repair strength. Data (MPa) were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Failure analysis was performed using stereomicroscopy (20X).
RESULTS
ANOVA revealed a significant effect of only the "material" factor (p = 0.00). The group NCR6mCJ presented bond strengths (29.37 ± 5.41) which were significantly higher than those of the NCR24hCJ (20.88 ± 5.74) and RC groups (p < 0.05). The group RC24hCJ (19.71 ± 4.21) presented the lowest shear bond strength (p < 0.05). Failure analysis revealed predominantly type B mixed failures (adhesive+cohesive in the substrate material) except for the groups NCR24hCJ and NCR6mAB, where mainly type C failure (adhesive+cohesive at the RC) was observed.
CONCLUSION
Air abrasion with Al2O3 particles or silicatization with CoJet followed by adhesive resin application are effective surface conditioning methods for the repair of nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin with resin composite.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 27 Jan 2021
1 download since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Orthodontics
Health Sciences > Oral Surgery
Health Sciences > Periodontics
Language:English
Date:2020
Deposited On:27 Jan 2021 14:07
Last Modified:31 Jan 2021 14:20
Publisher:Quintessence Publishing
ISSN:1461-5185
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44551
PubMed ID:32435768

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members