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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

J Adhes Dent 22 (2020), No. 4     24. July 2020
J Adhes Dent 22 (2020), No. 4  (24.07.2020)

Page 421-431, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a44874, PubMed:32666069


Adhesion, Mechanical Properties, and Microstructure of Resin-matrix CAD-CAM Ceramics
Castro, Eduardo Fernandes de / Azevedo, Veber Luiz Bomfim / Nima, Gabriel / Andrade, Oswaldo Scopin de / Dias, Carlos Tadeu dos Santos / Giannini, Marcelo
Purpose: To investigate the effects of 1-year water storage and surface treatments on shear bond strength (SBS) of two composite cements bonded to resin matrix CAD-CAM ceramics (RMCs) and on the mechanical properties of RMCs.

Materials and Methods: Three types of RMCs were tested: 1. polymer-infiltrated hybrid ceramic (PIHC, Enamic, VITA Zahnfabrik); 2. resin nanoceramic (RNC, Lava Ultimate, 3M Oral Care); and 3. flexible hybrid ceramic (FHC, Cerasmart, GC). One indirect laboratory composite (ILC, Epricord, Kuraray Noritake) was used as control. For each material, 60 plates (14 x 7 x 1 mm) were prepared for the SBS test and submitted to three different surface treatments: following manufacturer's instructions, non-thermal atmospheric plasma application (30 s), and plasma + bonding agent. Two composite cements were tested: RelyX Ultimate (3M Oral Care) and Panavia V5 (Kurarary Noritake). Two resin cylinders (1.5 mm diameter x 1.5 mm height) were bonded to each plate (n = 10), with one tested after 24-h storage in distilled water and the other after 1 year of storage in distilled water. Twenty rectangular bars (12 x 2 x 1 mm) of each indirect material were prepared and submitted to the 3-point flexural test after 24-h or 1-year water storage to determine the elastic modulus (EM) and flexural strength (FS) (n = 10). Fractured samples were also examined with SEM and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). SBS data were analyzed by four-way ANOVA, and EM and FS data by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results: Groups treated in accordance with manufacturer's instructions exhibited higher SBS than did plasma and plasma + bonding agent groups for all indirect materials, composite cements, and storage periods tested. In general, RelyX Ultimate displayed higher mean SBS than did Panavia V5, except for some groups of ILC where manufacturer's instructions were followed. After 1-year storage in water, all groups exhibited a significant reduction in SBS, except for some groups that following manufacturer's instructions. ILC showed the lowest values of EM and FS. Among the CAD-CAM materials, FHC exhibited the lowest EM and highest FS means, while PIHC possessed the highest EM and lowest FS means for both storage periods.

Conclusions: In general, following the respective manufacturer's instructions yielded the best bond strength results. For most materials, 1-year water storage decreased bond strength of composite cements to RMCs, as well as their FS, while increasing their EM. Microstructure and composition influenced the mechanical properties studied.

Keywords: CAD-CAM, composite resins, shear strength, non-thermal atmospheric pressure plasma, elastic modulus