Evaluation of Repair Bond Strength for Aged Resin-Based CAD/CAM Blocks and Indirect Inlay Composite Materials

Authors

Merve Gurses, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, TurkeyFollow
Sultan Gizem Ulku, Konya Meram Oral and Dental Health Center, Konya, TurkeyFollow
Ahmet Erol, Konya Oral and Dental Health Hospital, Konya, TurkeyFollow
Nimet Unlu, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, TurkeyFollow

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the repair bond strength of aged resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and indirect composites after surface treatment and application of adhesives. Methods: In the study, Lava Ultimate, Ceresmart, Filtek Z550, Filtek Ultimate, and Estelite Quick restorative materials; SE Bond, and Optibond XTR adhesives were used. For surface treatments, 37% orthophosphoric acid and 9% hydrofluoric acid were applied. In the control groups, only adhesive was applied. After repair restorations, the shear bond strength test was applied. Results: In the Lava group of SE Bond, the bonding values of the samples treated with 9% hydrofluoric acid were significantly higher than those treated with 37% phosphoric acid. Comparing the composites, in the samples treated with 37% phosphoric acid, we found the binding values of the Lava to be significantly lower than those of the FZ550, FU, and Estelite. In the OptiBond group, the binding values of the GC Cerec in the control group were lower than those in the FZ550, FU, Estelite, and Lava. Conclusion: It was observed that the repair bond values of the indirect composites were comparable. The repair bond values of the resin-based CAD/CAM blocks are similar but lower than those of the other indirect composites.

References

1. Lange RT, Pfeiffer P. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2009; 34(3):263-72.
2. Ozakar-Ilday N, Zorba YO, Yildiz M, Erdem V, Seven N, Demirbuga S. Three-year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013; 18(3):e521-8.
3. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent. 2010; 12(2):151-61.
4. Touati B, Aidan N. Second Generation Laboratory Composite Resins for Indirect Restorations. J Esthet Dent. 1997; 9(3):108-18.
5. Park SH. Comparison of degree of conversion for light-cured and additionally heat-cured composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76(6):613-8.
6. Fradeani M, Aquilano A, Bassein L. Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78(4):346-53.
7. Krämer N, Frankenberger R, Pelka M, Petschelt A. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years — a clinical study. J Dent. 1999; 27(5):325–31.
8. Messer PF, Piddock V, Lloyd CH. The strength of dental ceramics. J Dent. 1991; 19(1):51-5.
9. Sjögren G, Lantto R, Tillberg A. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns (Dicor) in general practice. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81(3):277-84.
10. Hayashi M, Wilson NHF, Yeung CA, Worthington HV. Systematic review of ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7(1):8-19.
11. Burke EJ, Qualtrough AJ. Aesthetic inlays: Composite or ceramic? Br Dent J. 1994; 176:53-60.
12. Kawano F, Ohguri T, Ichikawa T, Matsumoto N. Influence of thermal cycles in water on flexural strength of laboratory-processed composite resin. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28(8):703-7.
13. Fawzy AS, El-Askary FS, Amer MA. Effect of surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of repaired water-aged anterior restorative micro-fine hybrid resin composite. J Dent. 2008; 36(12):969-76.
14. Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Composite-composite repair bond strength: Effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent. 2003; 31(8):521-5.
15. Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(3):211-22.
16. Boyer DB, Chan KC, Reinhardt JW. Build-up and Repair of Light-cured Composites: Bond Strength. J Dent Res. 1984; 63(10):1241-4.
17. Chiba K, Hosoda H, Fusayama T. The addition of an adhesive composite resin to the same material: Bond strength and clinical techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 61(6):669-75.
18. Swift EJ Jr, Cloe BC, Boyer DB. Effect of a silane coupling agent on composite repair strengths. Am J Dent. 1994; 7(4):200-2.
19. Ikemura K, Tay FR, Nishiyama N, Pashley DH, Endo T. Design of new phosphonic acid monomers for dental adhesives-synthesis of (Meth)acryloxyalkyl 3-phosphonopropionates and evaluation of their adhesion-promoting functions. Dent Mater J. 2006; 25(3):566-75.
20. Kern M, Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: Adhesion methods and their durability. Dent Mater. 1998; 14(1):64-71.
21. Matsumura H, Yanagida H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M, Shimoe S. Shear bond strength of resin composite veneering material to gold alloy with varying metal surface preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86(3):315-9.
22. Teixeira EC, Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Ritter AV, Swift EJ. Shear bond strength of self-etching bonding systems in combination with various composites used for repairing aged composites. J Adhes Dent. 2005; 7(2):159-64.
23. Li J. Effects of surface properties on bond strength between layers of newly cured dental composites. J Oral Rehabil. 1997; 24(5):358-60.
24. Imbery TA, Gray T, DeLatour F, Boxx C, Best AM, Moon PC. Evaluation of flexural, diametral tensile, and shear bond strength of composite repairs. Oper Dent. 2014; 39(6):E250-60.
25. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Dent Mater. 2003; 19(8):693-9.
26. Kashi TSJ, Erfan M, Rakhshan V, Aghabaigi N, Tabatabaei FS. An in vitro assessment of the effects of three surface treatments on repair bond strength of aged composites. Oper Dent. 2011; 36(6):608-17.
27. Wanderico CM, Picolo MZD, Kury M, Azevedo VLB, Giannini M, Cavalli V. Alternative surface treatments strategies for bonding to CAD/CAM resin-matrix ceramics. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2022; 37(1):1-14.
28. Soares CJ, Giannini M, de Oliveira MT, Paulillo LAM, Martins LRM. Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004; 12(1):45-50.
29. Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks. J Dent Res. 2016; 95(5):487-95.
30. Sismanoglu S, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Erten-Taysi A, Ercal P. Influence of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the repair of CAD-CAM composite resins: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124(2):238.e1-9.
31. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J. 2015; 34(2):161-7.
32. Ayar MK, Guven ME, Burduroglu HD, Erdemir F. Repair of aged bulk-fill composite with posterior composite: Effect of different surface treatments. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 31(3):246-52.
33. Güngör MB, Nemli SK, Bal BT, Ünver S, Doğan A. Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to CAD/CAM resin-ceramic hybrid materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8(4):259-66.
34. Üstün Ö, Büyükhatipoğlu IK, Seçilmiş A. Shear bond strength of repair systems to new CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27(8):748-54.
35. Nagano D, Nakajima M, Takahashi M, Ikeda M, Hosaka K, Sato K, et al. Effect of water aging of adherend composite on repair bond strength of nanofilled composites. J Adhes Dent. 2018; 20(5):425-33.

Recommended Citation

Gurses, M., Ulku, S. G., Erol, A., & Unlu, N. Evaluation of Repair Bond Strength for Aged Resin-Based CAD/CAM Blocks and Indirect Inlay Composite Materials. J Dent Indones. 2024;31(3): 188-195