We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry



Forgotten password?


J Adhes Dent 17 (2015), No. 6     18. Dec. 2015
J Adhes Dent 17 (2015), No. 6  (18.12.2015)

Page 521-528, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a35256, PubMed:26734676

Evaluation of the Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Luting CAD/CAM Composite Resin Overlay Workpieces
Kassotakis, Emmanuel M. / Stavridakis, Minos / Bortolotto, Tissiana / Ardu, Stefano / Krejci, Ivo
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on luting CAD/CAM composite resin workpieces.
Materials and Methods: One-hundred eight (108) composite CAD/CAM block sections (Lava Ultimate) 3 mm in thickness were polished up to 4000 grit and then randomly assigned to 6 experimental groups according to the applied surface treatment (no treatment, sodium bicarbonate [NaHCO3], glycine, alumina [Al2O3], CoJet, and SilJet). After standardized sandblasting procedures, 2 block sections from each group were randomly chosen for the qualitative SEM evaluation of the sandblasted surfaces. The remaining 96 CAD/CAM block sections were luted in pairs using a bonding agent (Single Bond) and a restorative composite resin (Filtek Ultimate). Specimens were aged for 2 weeks in 37°C water with 3000 thermal cycles (5°C/55°C), the microtensile test was performed (n = 30), and the values were statistically analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post-hoc test (p = 0.05).
Results: The qualitative SEM evaluation of the sandblasted surfaces showed that sodium bicarbonate and glycine had almost no conditioning effect on the CAD/CAM composite resin. In contrast, aluminum oxide, CoJet, and SilJet had a profound conditioning effect on the CAD/CAM composite resin. No treatment, sodium bicarbonate, and glycine specimens were debonded after thermal stressing (0 MPa), while aluminum oxide, CoJet, and SilJet showed high microtensile values (Al2O3: 104.45 ± 18.76 MPa; CoJet: 105.55 ± 11.88 MPa; SilJet: 105.02 ± 20.84 MPa), which were not statistically significantly different from each other.
Conclusion: Aluminum oxide-based sandblasting powders are the best choice for the surface treatment of CAD/ CAM workpieces.

Keywords: composite CAD/CAM blocks, surface treatment, adhesion testing, microtensile bond strength