Effect of sandblasting and/or priming treatment on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to CAD/CAM blocks

Nagasawa, Y.; Eda, Yoshikazu; Shigeta, H.; Ferrari, Marco; Nakajima, Hiroshi; Hibino, Y.

doi:10.1007/s10266-021-00635-y

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study, the use of silane in resin-infused hybrid ceramic block (VITA Enamic) and nanoceramic (Lava Ultimate) CAD-CAM blocks was seen to increase micro tensile bond strength [28]. Ceramic and nanoceramic CAD-CAM blocks were applied with two different primers and/or sanding in another study, and the bond strength of the cement to resin was seen to be signi cantly greater in the samples of both blocks which had been sandblasted and applied with primer compared to the control group [29]. Barutçigil sandblasting, and 10% hydro uoric acid etching was reported to be similar to those of the laser process [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of 3D Permanent Resin Restorations by Composite Resin Different surface treatments and repair of 3D permanent resin

Sonkaya

Kürklü

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The repairability of ceramic containing 3D printed materials has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to compare the repair bond strength of permanent resin blocks with composite by applying different intraoral surface treatments after aging in water.Methods: The study material comprised thirty-five 3D printing cubes, which were aged in 10,000 thermocycles. Surface treatments were applied to the seven groups as A. Negative control (untreated) B. Positive control C. Phosphoric acid D. Er,Cr;YSGG laser E. Sandblasting F. Hydrofluoric acid, and G. Burr abrasion followed by multi-primer and universal bond. The best 1×1×12 mm sticks were tested on a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Duncan test.Results: The negative control group reached a significantly lower micro tensile bond strength than the laser and sandblasting groups (p≤ 0.05). The repair bond strength of the positive control group didn’t differ significantly from that of the other experimental groups (p=0.374).Conclusion: The bonding strength of composite resin hasn’t shown a statistically significant difference when different surface treatments were applied to 3D-printed resin. It can be concluded that it is possible to make small repairs of 3D printed permanent restorations with the application of primer and bond.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of 3D Permanent Resin Restorations by Composite Resin Different surface treatments and repair of 3D permanent resin

Sonkaya

Kürklü

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nagasawa et al reported that the polymer network in the composition of polymer-infiltrated glass ceramics is not sensitive to the HF function and is not significantly affected by HF in terms of etching depth. (16) In addition, Elsaka et al reported that etching resin-based composites for 90s increased their bond strength. (25) In this study, a short acid application duration (15s) and low concentration (5%) of etchant may have caused no change in SBS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self-adhesive resin cements containing selfadhesive monomers are useful bonding agents in reducing the time required for surface treatment. They exhibit strong adhesion to dental materials, resin composites, or ceramics (16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Different Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of a Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to CAD-CAM Materials

Kaptan

Bektaş

Eren

et al. 2022

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive resin cement when used with two different computer-aided design (CAD)-computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) materials after various surface treatments. Nanoceramic resin Lava Ultimate (LU) and feldspathic ceramic Vita Mark II (VM) CAD-CAM block samples were prepared with 1.5-mm thickness, and a total of 90 samples were obtained (N=90), with five samples of each block. The samples were divided into the following five groups according to the surface treatments (n=9): group 1, untreated (control); group 2,5% hydrofluoric acid etching; group 3, Er: YAG laser irradiation; group 4, tribochemical silica coating (Cojet); and group 5, air-abrasion with Al2O3. After silane application, resin cement was applied on a transparent matrix (diameter, 3mm; height, 2mm) on the blocks. SBS was determined using a universal testing device at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc tests were used to analyze the SBS values. LU showed the highest SBS value in group 4. The average SBS values in groups 3 and were found to be lower than that in the control group (p<0.05). When VM was examined, while all surface treatments increased the SBS values significantly, the highest SBS value was observed in group 4 (p<0.05). This study revealed that all surface treatments used negatively affected the bond strength values of self-adhesive resin cement to LU, except for Cojet application. The SBS values of resin cement with VM increased in all surface treatment application groups.

show abstract

“…Qualitative analysis of the risk of bias assessment was performed by individually scoring the ten selected parameters using the following criteria: (0) clearly mentioned, (1) present but not accurately mentioned, and (2) not mentioned. Global scoring was categorized as low (0-4), medium (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12), high (13)(14)(15)(16)(17), or very high (18-20) risk of bias.…”

Section: Quality Assessment Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Candidate materials may incorporate lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, zirconia, resin-matrix composites, polymer-infiltrated ceramic, or titanium [1,13]. Rehabilitation with CAD-CAM materials is becoming a standard dental technique due to high-tech digital technology based on image-capturing scanner devices, software, and integrated CAD-CAM systems [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Self-Adhesive Resin Luting Cement in CAD-CAM Blocks—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or adhesive systems. SARCs are generally dual-cured, photoactivated, and self-cured, with a slight increase in acidic pH, allowing self-adhesiveness and increasing resistance to hydrolysis. This systematic review assessed the adhesive strength of SARC systems luted to different substrates and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic blocks. The PubMed/MedLine and Science Direct databases were searched using the Boolean formula [((dental or tooth) AND (self-adhesive) AND (luting or cement) AND CAD-CAM) NOT (endodontics or implants)]. Of the 199 articles obtained, 31 were selected for the quality assessment. Lava Ultimate (resin matrix filled with nanoceramic) and Vita Enamic (polymer-infiltrated ceramic) blocks were the most tested. Rely X Unicem 2 was the most tested resin cement, followed by Rely X Unicem > Ultimate > U200, and μTBS was the test most used. The meta-analysis confirmed the substrate-dependent adhesive strength of SARCs, with significant differences between them and between SARCs and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (α < 0.05). SARCs are promising. However, one must be aware of the differences in the adhesive strengths. An appropriate combination of materials must be considered to improve the durability and stability of restorations.

show abstract

Effect of sandblasting and/or priming treatment on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to CAD/CAM blocks

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of 3D Permanent Resin Restorations by Composite Resin Different surface treatments and repair of 3D permanent resin

The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of 3D Permanent Resin Restorations by Composite Resin Different surface treatments and repair of 3D permanent resin

Influence of Different Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of a Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to CAD-CAM Materials

Effectiveness of Self-Adhesive Resin Luting Cement in CAD-CAM Blocks—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About