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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |