Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (May 2019)
Effects of Different Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin Nano Ceramic or Ceromer to Resin Cement
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on the micro-tensile bond strength (MTBS) of two different indirect restoration materials (resin nano ceramic CAD/CAM material [Lava Ultimate, 3M ESPE]; ceromer material [Estenia C&B, Kuraray Medical]). Materials and Methods: Specimens were prepared from each test material in dimensions of 3×10×10 mm. The specimens were divided into five different surface treatment groups: group 1 (control [C]), no treatment; group 2 (acid etching [A]); group 3 (acid etching + universal adhesive [AA]); group 4 (sandblasting [S]); and group 5 (sandblasting + universal adhesive [SA]). The prepared specimens were cemented to composite parts (Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative, 3M ESPE) of the same size using dual-cure adhesive resin cement (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray Medical). A total, 100 bar-shaped specimens (6×1×1 mm) were cut using a low-speed diamond saw (n=10 in each group). The MTBS test was performed in all groups (Shimadzu AG-50 kNG, Kyoto, Japan, 1 mm/min). Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple comparison tests at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: The MTBS values were significantly influenced by the type of restorative material and surface treatment (p<0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the materials and surface treatments procedures (p<0.05). For Lava Ultimate and Estenia C&B materials, the highest MTBS value was obtained in the SA surface treatment (p<0.05) and the lowest MTBS value was obtained in the control groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: The application of silane-containing universal adhesive material after sandblasting was the ideal surface treatment for both materials.
Keywords
