Cargando…

Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of polymer-ceramic and indirect composite resin with 3 classes of resin cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated polymer-ceramics (Enamic [ENA; Vita] and Lava Ult...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sadighpour, Leyla, Geramipanah, Farideh, Ghasri, Zahra, Neshatian, Mehrnoosh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6237724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30483464
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e40
_version_ 1783371225340313600
author Sadighpour, Leyla
Geramipanah, Farideh
Ghasri, Zahra
Neshatian, Mehrnoosh
author_facet Sadighpour, Leyla
Geramipanah, Farideh
Ghasri, Zahra
Neshatian, Mehrnoosh
author_sort Sadighpour, Leyla
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of polymer-ceramic and indirect composite resin with 3 classes of resin cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated polymer-ceramics (Enamic [ENA; Vita] and Lava Ultimate [LAV; 3M ESPE]) and a laboratory indirect composite resin (Gradia [GRA; GC Corp.]) were equally divided into 6 groups (n = 18) with 3 classes of resin cements: Variolink N (VAR; Vivadent), RelyX U200 (RXU; 3M ESPE), and Panavia F2 (PAN; Kuraray). The μTBS values were compared between groups by 2-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tamhane test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Restorative materials and resin cements significantly influenced µTBS (p < 0.05). In the GRA group, the highest μTBS was found with RXU (27.40 ± 5.39 N) and the lowest with VAR (13.54 ± 6.04 N) (p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in the ENA group. In the LAV group, the highest μTBS was observed with VAR (27.45 ± 5.84 N) and the lowest with PAN (10.67 ± 4.37 N) (p < 0.05). PAN had comparable results to those of ENA and GRA, whereas the μTBS values were significantly lower with LAV (p = 0.001). The highest bond strength of RXU was found with GRA (27.40 ± 5.39 N, p = 0.001). PAN showed the lowest µTBS with LAV (10.67 ± 4.37 N; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, the µTBS of polymer-ceramic CAD/CAM materials and indirect composites is influenced by the luting cements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6237724
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62377242018-11-27 Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements Sadighpour, Leyla Geramipanah, Farideh Ghasri, Zahra Neshatian, Mehrnoosh Restor Dent Endod Research Article OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of polymer-ceramic and indirect composite resin with 3 classes of resin cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated polymer-ceramics (Enamic [ENA; Vita] and Lava Ultimate [LAV; 3M ESPE]) and a laboratory indirect composite resin (Gradia [GRA; GC Corp.]) were equally divided into 6 groups (n = 18) with 3 classes of resin cements: Variolink N (VAR; Vivadent), RelyX U200 (RXU; 3M ESPE), and Panavia F2 (PAN; Kuraray). The μTBS values were compared between groups by 2-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tamhane test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Restorative materials and resin cements significantly influenced µTBS (p < 0.05). In the GRA group, the highest μTBS was found with RXU (27.40 ± 5.39 N) and the lowest with VAR (13.54 ± 6.04 N) (p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in the ENA group. In the LAV group, the highest μTBS was observed with VAR (27.45 ± 5.84 N) and the lowest with PAN (10.67 ± 4.37 N) (p < 0.05). PAN had comparable results to those of ENA and GRA, whereas the μTBS values were significantly lower with LAV (p = 0.001). The highest bond strength of RXU was found with GRA (27.40 ± 5.39 N, p = 0.001). PAN showed the lowest µTBS with LAV (10.67 ± 4.37 N; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, the µTBS of polymer-ceramic CAD/CAM materials and indirect composites is influenced by the luting cements. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2018-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6237724/ /pubmed/30483464 http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e40 Text en Copyright © 2018. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sadighpour, Leyla
Geramipanah, Farideh
Ghasri, Zahra
Neshatian, Mehrnoosh
Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
title Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
title_full Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
title_fullStr Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
title_full_unstemmed Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
title_short Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
title_sort microtensile bond strength of cad/cam-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6237724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30483464
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e40
work_keys_str_mv AT sadighpourleyla microtensilebondstrengthofcadcamfabricatedpolymerceramicstodifferentadhesiveresincements
AT geramipanahfarideh microtensilebondstrengthofcadcamfabricatedpolymerceramicstodifferentadhesiveresincements
AT ghasrizahra microtensilebondstrengthofcadcamfabricatedpolymerceramicstodifferentadhesiveresincements
AT neshatianmehrnoosh microtensilebondstrengthofcadcamfabricatedpolymerceramicstodifferentadhesiveresincements