J Adv Prosthodont.  2017 Oct;9(5):364-370. 10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.364.

Repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics

• Subaşı M
• Alp G

• KMID: 2393222
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.364

Abstract

PURPOSE
To explore the influence of different surface conditionings on surface changes and the influence of surface treatments and aging on the bond strengths of composites to non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Rectangular-shaped non-aged and aged (5000 thermocycles) resin nanoceramic specimens (Lava Ultimate) (n=63, each) were divided into 3 groups according to surface treatments (untreated, air abrasion, or silica coating) (n=21). The surface roughness was measured and scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each group. Afterwards, the specimens were repaired with a composite resin (Filtek Z550) and half were sent for aging (5000 thermocycles, n=10, each). Shear bond strengths and failure types were evaluated. Roughness and bond strength were investigated by two- and three-way analysis of variance, respectively. The correlation between the roughness and bond strength was investigated by Pearson's correlation test.
RESULTS
Surface-treated samples had higher roughness compared with the untreated specimens (P=.000). For the non-aged resin nanoceramic groups, aging was a significant factor for bond strength; for the aged resin nanoceramic groups, surface treatment and aging were significant factors. The failures were mostly adhesive after thermal cycling, except in the non-aged untreated group and the aged air-abraded group, which had mostly mixed failures. Roughness and bond strength were positively correlated (P=.003).
CONCLUSION
Surface treatment is not required for the repair of non-aged resin nanoceramic; for the repair of aged resin nanoceramic restorations, air abrasion is recommended.

Keyword

Bond strength; Repair; Resin nanoceramic; Roughness; Surface treatment

MeSH Terms

Adhesives
Aging
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Silicon Dioxide
Adhesives
Silicon Dioxide

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The separable teflon mold used to repair the Lava Ultimate (LU) specimens.

• 

  Fig. 2 Representative images from scanning electron microscopy of surface-treated non-aged and aged LU. (A) Non-aged untreated LU. (B) Aged untreated LU. (C) Non-aged air-abraded LU. (D) Aged air-abraded LU. (E) Non-aged silica-treated LU. (F) Aged silica-treated LU (magnification, ×700).

Reference

1. Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-produced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137:14S–21S.

2. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009; 28:44–56.

3. Kois DE, Isvilanonda V, Chaiyabutr Y, Kois JC. Evaluation of fracture resistance and failure risks of posterior partial coverage restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25:110–122.

4. Zahran M, El-Mowafy O, Tam L, Watson PA, Finer Y. Fracture strength and fatigue resistance of all-ceramic molar crowns manufactured with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthodont. 2008; 17:370–377.

5. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:1141–1150.

6. Fasbinder DJ. Materials for chairside CAD/CAM restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010; 31:702–704. 706708–709.

7. Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:424–432.

8. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:419–426.

9. Acar O, Yilmaz B, Altintas SH, Chandrasekaran I, Johnston WM. Color stainability of CAD/CAM and nanocomposite resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115:71–75.

10. El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Oper Dent. 2015; 40:201–210.

11. Krämer N, Kunzelmann KH, Taschner M, Mehl A, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Antagonist enamel wears more than ceramic inlays. J Dent Res. 2006; 85:1097–1100.

12. Magne P, Knezevic A. Simulated fatigue resistance of composite resin versus porcelain CAD/CAM overlay restorations on endodontically treated molars. Quintessence Int. 2009; 40:125–133.

13. Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013; 20:113–125.

14. Alt V, Hannig M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M. Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:339–347.

15. Ozcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15:299–302.

16. Duzyol M, Sagsoz O, Polat Sagsoz N, Akgul N, Yildiz M. The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM Blocks and Composite Resin. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25:466–471.

17. Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations-criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:28–50.

18. Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie N. Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19:299–308.

19. Wiegand A, Stucki L, Hoffmann R, Attin T, Stawarczyk B. Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19:2007–2013.

20. 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; 8:259–266.

21. Quinn GD, Giuseppetti AA, Hoffman KH. Chipping fracture resistance of dental CAD/CAM restorative materials: part I-procedures and results. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:e99–e111.

22. Ornaghi BP, Meier MM, Rosa V, Cesar PF, Lohbauer U, Braga RR. Subcritical crack growth and in vitro lifetime prediction of resin composites with different filler distributions. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:985–995.

23. Özcan M, Volpato CÂ. Surface Conditioning and Bonding Protocol for Nanocomposite Indirect Restorations: How and Why? J Adhes Dent. 2016; 18:82.

24. Amaral M, Belli R, Cesar PF, Valandro LF, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The potential of novel primers and universal adhesives to bond to zirconia. J Dent. 2014; 42:90–98.

25. Wahsh MM, Ghallab OH. Influence of different surface treatments on microshear bond strength of repair resin composite to two CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. Tanta Dent J. 2015; 12:178–184.

26. Palmer DS, Barco MT, Billy EJ. Temperature extremes produced orally by hot and cold liquids. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67:325–327.

27. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J. 2015; 34:161–167.

28. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999; 27:89–99.

29. Torstenson B, Brännström M. Contraction gap under composite resin restorations: effect of hygroscopic expansion and thermal stress. Oper Dent. 1988; 13:24–31.

30. Bähr N, Keul C, Edelhoff D, Eichberger M, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B. Effect of different adhesives combined with two resin composite cements on shear bond strength to polymeric CAD/CAM materials. Dent Mater J. 2013; 32:492–501.