Cargando…

Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment

BACKGROUND: Thus, purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of the resin cement and the resin modified glass ionomer cement on 3D printed temporary material for crowns and bridges in combination with different surface treatment modalities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Test specimens Vars...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Holmer, Lorenz, Othman, Ahmed, Lührs, Anne-Katrin, von See, Constantin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31110617
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55617
_version_ 1783419078368559104
author Holmer, Lorenz
Othman, Ahmed
Lührs, Anne-Katrin
von See, Constantin
author_facet Holmer, Lorenz
Othman, Ahmed
Lührs, Anne-Katrin
von See, Constantin
author_sort Holmer, Lorenz
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Thus, purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of the resin cement and the resin modified glass ionomer cement on 3D printed temporary material for crowns and bridges in combination with different surface treatment modalities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Test specimens VarseoSmile Temp material (Bego, Bremen, Germany) (n=64) in the form of rectangular blocks (n=32) and cylindrical test specimens (n=32) were printed using the Varseo S 3D printer (Bego, Bremen, Germany). The specimens were divided into 4 groups, with 8 specimens of each kind. Two groups (n=16 pairs) were blasted with Perlablast® Micro [PM] 50µm (Bego, Bremen, Germany) and two groups (n=16 pairs) were blasted with alumina [AL] 50µm. The cylindric specimen were cemented on the rectangular block with a load of 20N using a Zwick/Roell machine (Ulm, Germany), to ensure a comparable cementing process. One group (n=8) of each pre-treatment was cemented with Fuji Cem 2 [Fuji+AL & Fuji+PM] and one of each with Variolink® Esthetic [Vario+AL & Vario+PM]. The Fuji Cem 2 was chemically cured while dual curing Variolink® Esthetic was additionally light cured using LED (Bluephase II, Ivoclar Vivadent, Ellwagen, Germany; light intensity, >1,000 mW/cm2, high power modus). The shear strength was performed with Zwick/Roell universal test machine (speed, 0.8 mm/min), fracture and statistical analysis was performed (T-test, p<0.05). RESULTS: T-test showed a significant difference Fuji Cem 2 (Fuji+AL & Fuji&PM) and Variolink® Esthetic (Vario+AL &Vario+PM) (p=0.000). Fuji+AL & Fuji+PM showed a significant difference for surface pre-treatment (p=0.002). Vario+AL & Vario+PM no significance (p=0.872) for pre-treatment method was detectable. CONCLUSIONS: Variolink® Esthetic showed a higher bond strength compared to Fuji Cem 2 and an increasing bond strength for Fuji Cem 2 with alumina pre-treatment. There was no significant difference for Vario+AL and Vario+PM. Key words:Shear bond strength, adhesion, adhesive resin cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement, 3D printable materials, mechanical testing, provisional restoration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6522115
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65221152019-05-20 Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment Holmer, Lorenz Othman, Ahmed Lührs, Anne-Katrin von See, Constantin J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: Thus, purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of the resin cement and the resin modified glass ionomer cement on 3D printed temporary material for crowns and bridges in combination with different surface treatment modalities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Test specimens VarseoSmile Temp material (Bego, Bremen, Germany) (n=64) in the form of rectangular blocks (n=32) and cylindrical test specimens (n=32) were printed using the Varseo S 3D printer (Bego, Bremen, Germany). The specimens were divided into 4 groups, with 8 specimens of each kind. Two groups (n=16 pairs) were blasted with Perlablast® Micro [PM] 50µm (Bego, Bremen, Germany) and two groups (n=16 pairs) were blasted with alumina [AL] 50µm. The cylindric specimen were cemented on the rectangular block with a load of 20N using a Zwick/Roell machine (Ulm, Germany), to ensure a comparable cementing process. One group (n=8) of each pre-treatment was cemented with Fuji Cem 2 [Fuji+AL & Fuji+PM] and one of each with Variolink® Esthetic [Vario+AL & Vario+PM]. The Fuji Cem 2 was chemically cured while dual curing Variolink® Esthetic was additionally light cured using LED (Bluephase II, Ivoclar Vivadent, Ellwagen, Germany; light intensity, >1,000 mW/cm2, high power modus). The shear strength was performed with Zwick/Roell universal test machine (speed, 0.8 mm/min), fracture and statistical analysis was performed (T-test, p<0.05). RESULTS: T-test showed a significant difference Fuji Cem 2 (Fuji+AL & Fuji&PM) and Variolink® Esthetic (Vario+AL &Vario+PM) (p=0.000). Fuji+AL & Fuji+PM showed a significant difference for surface pre-treatment (p=0.002). Vario+AL & Vario+PM no significance (p=0.872) for pre-treatment method was detectable. CONCLUSIONS: Variolink® Esthetic showed a higher bond strength compared to Fuji Cem 2 and an increasing bond strength for Fuji Cem 2 with alumina pre-treatment. There was no significant difference for Vario+AL and Vario+PM. Key words:Shear bond strength, adhesion, adhesive resin cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement, 3D printable materials, mechanical testing, provisional restoration. Medicina Oral S.L. 2019-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6522115/ /pubmed/31110617 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55617 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Holmer, Lorenz
Othman, Ahmed
Lührs, Anne-Katrin
von See, Constantin
Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
title Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
title_full Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
title_fullStr Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
title_short Comparison of the shear bond strength of 3D printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
title_sort comparison of the shear bond strength of 3d printed temporary bridges materials, on different types of resin cements and surface treatment
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31110617
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55617
work_keys_str_mv AT holmerlorenz comparisonoftheshearbondstrengthof3dprintedtemporarybridgesmaterialsondifferenttypesofresincementsandsurfacetreatment
AT othmanahmed comparisonoftheshearbondstrengthof3dprintedtemporarybridgesmaterialsondifferenttypesofresincementsandsurfacetreatment
AT luhrsannekatrin comparisonoftheshearbondstrengthof3dprintedtemporarybridgesmaterialsondifferenttypesofresincementsandsurfacetreatment
AT vonseeconstantin comparisonoftheshearbondstrengthof3dprintedtemporarybridgesmaterialsondifferenttypesofresincementsandsurfacetreatment