Shear bond strength of dental CAD-CAM hybrid restorative materials repaired with composite resin

Yun-Hee Moon; Jonghyuk Lee; Myung-Gu Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2016.54.3.193

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.54(3) > 1034870

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Moon, Lee, and Lee: Shear bond strength of dental CAD-CAM hybrid restorative materials repaired with composite resin

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54(3):193-202.

Published online: 18 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2016.54.3.193

Shear bond strength of dental CAD-CAM hybrid restorative materials repaired with composite resin

Yun-Hee Moon¹, Jonghyuk Lee^2,^∗, Myung-Gu Lee¹

^¹Department of Oral Health, Graduate School of Public Health & Social Welfare, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea

^²Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Jonghyuk Lee Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea +82 (0)41 550 1973: e-mail, hyuk928@dankook.ac.kr

Received 24 December 201524 April 2016 Accepted 27 April 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was performed in order to assess the effect of the surface treatment methods and the use of bonding agent on the shear bond strength (SBS) between the aged CAD-CAM (computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing) hybrid materials and added composite resin.

Materials and methods

LAVA Ultimate (LU) and VITA ENAMIC (VE) specimens were age treated by submerging in a 37℃ water bath filled with artificial saliva (Xerova solution) for 30 days. The surface was ground with #220 SiC paper then the specimens were divided into 9 groups according to the combination of the surface treatment (no treatment, grinding, air abrasion with aluminum oxide, HF acid) and bonding agents (no bonding, Adper Single Bond 2, Single Bond Universal). Each group had 10 specimens. Specimens were repaired (added) using composite resin (Filtek Z250), then all the specimens were stored for 7 days in room temperature distilled water. SBS was measured and the fractured surfaces were observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and Scheffe test were used for statistical analysis (α =.05).

Results

Mostly groups with bonding agent treatment showed higher SBS than groups without bonding agent. Among the groups without bonding agent the groups with aluminum oxide treatment showed higher SBS. However there was no significant difference between groups except two subgroups within LU group, which revealed a significant increase of SBS when Single Bond Universal was used on the ground LU specimen.

Conclusion

The use of bonding agent when repairing an aged LAVA Ultimate restoration is recommended. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54:193-202)

Keywords: Hybrid restorative material, Resin nanoceramic, Polymer infiltrated ceramic network, Shear bond strength, Computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM)

REFERENCES

1.He LH., Purton D., Swain M. A novel polymer infiltrated ceramic for dental simulation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011. 22:1639–43.

2.Kim HC. Ceramic materials for chair side CAD/CAM. J Korean Acad Esthet Dent. 2014. 23:16–26.

3.Kurbad A., Kurbad S. A new, hybrid material for minimally invasive restorations in clinical use. Int J Comput Dent. 2013. 16:69–79.

4.Rocca GT., Bonnafous F., Rizcalla N., Krejci I. A technique to improve the esthetic aspects of CAD/CAM composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2010. 104:273–5.

5.Frankenberger R., Hartmann VE., Krech M., Krämer N., Reich S., Braun A., Roggendorf M. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent. 2015. 18:9–20.

6.Lee JY., Im EB. A shear bond strength of resin cements bonded to pressable porcelain with various surface treatments. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2003. 41:379–86.

7.Kang HS., Choi HY. A study on the bond strength of repair resin to the surface treated composite resins. J Korean Acad Cons Dent. 1995. 20:487–507.

8.Amaral R., Ozcan M., Bottino MA., Valandro LF. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: the effect of surface conditioning. Dent Mater. 2006. 22:283–90.

9.Lee YG., Moon SR., Cho YG. Effect of cutting instruments on the dentin bond strength of a self-etch adhesive. J Korean Acad Cons Dent. 2010. 35:13–9.

10.Lee CW., Kim JW., Lee SH. A study on microleakage of composite resin after surface treatment. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 1998. 25:103–15.

11.Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2003. 30:194–203.

12.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.

13.Daniels MW., Francis LF. Silane adsorption behavior, microstructure, and properties of glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysi-lane-modified colloidal silica coatings. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1998. 205:191–200.

14.Ozcan M. The use of chairside silica coating for different dental applications: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 87:469–72.

15.Egilmez F., Ergun G., Cekic-Nagas I., Vallittu PK., Ozcan M., Lassila LV. Effect of surface modification on the bond strength between zirconia and resin cement. J Prosthodont. 2013. 22:529–36.

16.Swift EJ Jr., Cloe BC., Boyer DB. Effect of a silane coupling agent on composite repair strengths. Am J Dent. 1994. 7:200–2.

17.Brosh T., Pilo R., Bichacho N., Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 77:122–6.

18.Hisamatsu N., Atsuta M., Matsumura H. Effect of silane primers and unfilled resin bonding agents on repair bond strength of a prosthodontic microfilled composite. J Oral Rehabil. 2002. 29:644–8.

19.Ru ME. Influence of artificial saliva contamination on bonding of dentin adhesives to dentin. J Korean Acad Cons Dent. 1992. 17:383–97.

20.Flores S., Charlton DG., Evans DB. Repairability of polyacid-modified composite resin. Oper Dent. 1995. 20:191–6.

21.Lauvahutanon S., Takahashi H., Shiozawa M., Iwasaki N., Asakawa Y., Oki M., Finger WJ., Arksornnukit M. Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J. 2014. 33:705–10.

22.Frankenberger R., Hartmann VE., Krech M., Krämer N., Reich S., Braun A., Roggendorf M. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent. 2015. 18:9–20.

Fig. 1.

Dental CAD-CAM hybrid block. (A) LAVA Ultimate, (B) VITA ENAMIC.

Fig. 2.

Means and standard deviations of shear bond strength of experimental groups with marks denoting statistical significance (∗ denotes P < .05).

Fig. 3.

Prevalence of failure modes after shear bond strength test (LAVA Ultimate).

Fig. 4.

Prevalence of failure modes after shear bond strength test (VITA ENAMIC).

Fig. 5.

Prevalence of failure modes after shear bond strength test (Porcelain).

Fig. 6.

Scanning electron microscopic photomicrograph of polished surface of specimens before aging (×20,000 magnification). (A) LAVA Ultimate, (B) VITA ENAMIC.

Fig. 7.

Scanning electron microscopic photomicrograph of specimens after artificial aging by submerging in artificial saliva for 1 month (×20,000 magnification). (A) LAVA Ultimate, (B) VITA ENAMIC.

Fig. 8.

Scanning electron microscopic photomicrograph of specimens after #220 SiC paper grinding (×20,000 magnification). (A) LAVA Ultimate, (B) VITA ENAMIC.

Fig. 9.

Scanning electron microscopic photomicrograph of specimens after aluminum oxide abrasion and ultrasonic cleaning (×20,000 magnification). (A) LAVA Ultimate, (B) VITA ENAMIC.

Fig. 10.

Scanning electron microscopic photomicrograph of specimens after HF acid etching for 1 minute (×20,000 magnification). (A) LAVA Ultimate, (B) VITA ENAMIC.

Table 1.

Base and repair material in this study

Material	Shade	Composition	Filler (% content)	Manufacturer
LAVA Ultimate	A3	Polymer with approx. 80 wt% inorganic filler	Nanoparticle cluster (80 wt%)-resin	3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA
VITA ENAMIC	A3	Fine-structure feldspathic ceramic 86 wt%, Polymer 14 wt%	Fine ceramic network (86 wt%)-PMMA	Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany
CERABIEN ZR	A3	Feldspathic glass ceramic		Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Nagoya, Japan
Filtek Z250	A1	Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA	Silica, zirconium oxide	3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA

Table 2.

Material compositions used for surface treatment in this study

Material	Composition	Manufacturer
Cobra No.1594-1205	50 ㎛ aluminum oxide	Renfert GmbH, Hilzinger, Germany
4% PORCELAIN ETCHANT	4% Hydrofluoric acid	Bisco, Inc., Schaumberg, IL, USA
Adper Single Bond 2	Bis-GMA, HEMA, Dimethacrylates, Polyalkenoic acid copolymer, Ethanol, Water	3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA
Single Bond Universal	MDP phosphate monomer, DM, HEMA, Vitrebond copolymer, Filler, Ethanol, Water, Silane	3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA

Table 3.

Composition of artificial saliva (Xerova solution) per 100 mL

Calcium Chloride Hydrate	15 mg
Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium	1 g
Dibasic Potassium Phosphate	34 mg
D-Sorbitol	3 g
Magnesium Chloride	5 mg
Potassium Chloride	120 mg
Sodium Chloride	84 mg

Table 4.

Summary of surface treatment protocols for each group

Group		Surface treatment	N
1	LU 1	SiC paper	10
1	VE 1	SiC paper	10
2	LU 2	SiC paper + Adper Single Bond 2	10
2	VE 2	SiC paper + Adper Single Bond 2	10
3	LU 3	SiC paper + Single Bond Universal	10
3	VE 3	SiC paper + Single Bond Universal	10
4	LU 4	SiC paper + Air abrasion(aluminum oxide)	10
4	VE 4	SiC paper + Air abrasion(aluminum oxide)	10
5	LU 5	SiC paper + Air abrasion(aluminum oxide) + Adper Single Bond 2	10
5	VE 5		10
6	LU 6	SiC paper + Air abrasion(aluminum oxide) + Single Bond Universal	10
6	VE 6		10
7	LU 7	SiC paper + HF etching	10
	VE 7		10
	Po 7		10
8	LU 8	SiC paper + HF etching + Adper Single Bond 2	10
	VE 8		10
	Po 8		10
9	LU 9	SiC paper + HF etching + Single Bond Universal	10
	VE 9		10
	Po 9		10

LU; LAVA Ultimate, VE; VITA ENAMIC, Po; Porcelain (CZR)

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics for the shear bond strength test (Unit: MPa)

Material/surfaces treatment	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9
	SiC paper no.220 Aluminum oxide
	Non	Non S.B.2	S.B.U	Non	S.B.2	S.B.U	Non	HF acid S.B.2	S.B.U
LU	LU1	LU2	LU3	LU4	LU5	LU6	LU7	LU8	LU9
	0.01	3.75	12.76	2.59	3.96	4.95	0.27	3.57	6.28
	(± 0.01)	(± 1.26)	(± 12.48)^∗	(± 3.72)	(± 2.88)	(± 2.86)	(± 0.43)	(± 4.96)	(± 3.34)
VE	VE1	VE2	VE3	VE4	VE5	VE6	VE7	VE8	VE9
	0.61	4.47	6.4	4.06	9.77	9.42	0.62	7.36	6.16
	(± 0.42)	(± 1.88)	(± 4.14)	(± 3.84)	(± 7.95)^∗	(± 9.11)	(± 0.54)	(± 8.53)	(± 3.34)
Po							Po7	Po8	Po9
							0.37	1.84	3.19
							(± 0.44)	(± 0.82)	(± 2.65)^∗

LU: LAVA Ultimate, VE: VITA ENAMIC, Po: Porcelain, S.B.2: Adper Single Bond 2, S.B.U: Single Bond Universal

^∗ Highest values in each material.

Table 6.

The result of one-way ANOVA for experimental groups

Source	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between	2433.900	20	121.695	5.277	.000
Within	4358.793	189	23.062
Total	6792.693	209

TOOLS

Similar articles