J Adhes Dent 22 (2020), No. 3 29. May 2020
J Adhes Dent 22 (2020), No. 3 (29.05.2020)
Page 275-283, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a44551, PubMed:32435768
Repair Bond Strength of a CAD/CAM Nanoceramic Resin and Direct Composite Resin: Effect of Aging and Surface Conditioning Methods
Moura, Dayanne Monielle Duarte / Dal Piva, Amanda Maria de Oliveira / Januário, Ana Beatriz do Nascimento / Verissímo, Aretha Heitor / Bottino, Marco Antonio / Özcan, Mutlu / Souza, Rodrigo Othávio Assunção
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface conditioning methods and aging on the repair bond strength between resin composite and nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin.
Materials and Methods: Twenty-four blocks of nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin (NCR) (Lava Ultimate, 3M Oral Care) (10 x 5 x 2 mm3) and resin composite (Filtek Z350, 3M Oral Care) (RC) were made, embedded in acrylic resin, polished (#600, #800, #1200) and randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 12 each) according to surface conditioning methods (air abrasion with 30-μm CoJet [CJ] or air abrasion with 50-μm Al2O3 [AB]) and aging prior to repair (without aging, 24 h in water at 37°C; with aging 6 months in water at 37°C). The blocks were air abraded (20 s, 2.5 bar, 10 mm) using a standardized device. A layer of adhesive resin (Scotchbond Universal) was applied (20 s) and photopolymerized for 20 s. RC cylinders (Ø = 2 mm; h = 2 mm) were then bonded to the NCR substrates using a Teflon matrix and photopolymerized for 40 s. All specimens were thermocycled (10,000 cycles, 5°C-55°C) and submitted to the shear bond test (50 kgf, 0.5 mm/min) to measure repair strength. Data (MPa) were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Failure analysis was performed using stereomicroscopy (20X).
Results: ANOVA revealed a significant effect of only the "material" factor (p = 0.00). The group NCR6mCJ presented bond strengths (29.37 ± 5.41) which were significantly higher than those of the NCR24hCJ (20.88 ± 5.74) and RC groups (p < 0.05). The group RC24hCJ (19.71 ± 4.21) presented the lowest shear bond strength (p < 0.05). Failure analysis revealed predominantly type B mixed failures (adhesive+cohesive in the substrate material) except for the groups NCR24hCJ and NCR6mAB, where mainly type C failure (adhesive+cohesive at the RC) was observed.
Conclusion: Air abrasion with Al2O3 particles or silicatization with CoJet followed by adhesive resin application are effective surface conditioning methods for the repair of nanoceramic CAD/CAM resin with resin composite.
Keywords: adhesion, nanoceramic resin, repair, resin composite, shear bond strength, surface conditioning