Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the shear bond strength between 3D printed provisional resin and conventional provisional resin depending on type of conventional provisional resin and different surface treatments of 3D printed resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six disc-shaped specimens (Ø14 mm × 20 mm thickness) were printed with resin for 3D printing (Nextdent C&B, Vertex-Dental B. V., Soesterberg, Netherlands). After post-processing, the specimens were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=12) according to two types of conventional repair resin (methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite) and four different surface treatments: no additional treatment, air abrasion, soaking in methylmethacrylate (MMA) monomer, and soaking in MMA monomer after air abrasion. After surface treatment, each repair resin was bonded in cylindrical shape using a silicone mold. Specimens were stored in 37℃ distilled water for 24 hours. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed by scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA test and Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05). RESULTS: The group repaired with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment showed the highest mean shear bond strength. It was significantly higher than all four groups repaired with methylmethacrylate (P<.05). Additional surface treatments, neither mechanical nor chemical, increased the shear bond strength within methylmethacrylate groups and bis-acryl composite groups (P>.05). Failure mode analysis showed that cohesive failure was most frequent in both methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that when repairing 3D printed provisional restoration with conventional provisional resin, repair with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment is recommended.