Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 529–538 | Cite as

Bonding to new CAD/CAM resin composites: influence of air abrasion and conditioning agents as pretreatment strategy

  • Marcel ReymusEmail author
  • Malgorzata Roos
  • Marlis Eichberger
  • Daniel Edelhoff
  • Reinhard Hickel
  • Bogna Stawarczyk
Original Article
  • 387 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Because of their industrially standardized process of manufacturing, CAD/CAM resin composites show a high degree of conversion, making a reliable bond difficult to achieve.

Purpose

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the tensile bond strength (TBS) of luting composite to CAD/CAM resin composite materials as influenced by air abrasion and pretreatment strategies.

Material and methods

The treatment factors of the present study were (1) brand of the CAD/CAM resin composite (Brilliant Crios [Coltene/Whaledent], Cerasmart [GC Europe], Shofu Block HC [Shofu], and Lava Ultimate [3M]); (2) air abrasion vs. no air abrasion; and (3) pretreatment using a silane primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer, Kuraray) vs. a resin primer (One Coat 7 Universal, Coltene/Whaledent). Subsequently, luting composite (DuoCem, Coltene/Whaledent) was polymerized onto the substrate surface using a mold. For each combination of the levels of the three treatment factors (4 (materials) × 2 (air abrasion vs. no air abrasion; resin) × 2 (primer vs. silane primer)), n = 15, specimens were prepared. After 24 h of water storage at 37 °C and 5000 thermo-cycles (5/55 °C), TBS was measured and failure types were examined. The resulting data was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier estimates of the cumulative failure distribution function with Breslow–Gehan tests and non-parametric ANOVA (Kruskal–Wallis test) followed by the multiple pairwise Mann–Whitney U test with α-error adjustment using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure and chi-square test (p < 0.05).

Results

The additional air abrasion step increased TBS values and lowered failure rates. Specimens pretreated using a resin primer showed significantly higher TBS and lower failure rates than those pretreated using a silane primer. The highest failure rates were observed for groups pretreated with a silane primer. Within the Shofu Block HC group, all specimens without air abrasion and pretreatment with a silane primer debonded during the aging procedure.

Conclusions

Before fixation of CAD/CAM resin composites, the restorations should be air abraded and pretreated using a resin primer containing methyl-methacrylate to successfully bond to the luting composite. The pretreatment of the CAD/CAM resin composite using merely a silane primer results in deficient adhesion.

Clinical relevance

For a reliable bond of CAD/CAM resin composites to the luting composite, air abrasion and a special pretreatment strategy are necessary in order to achieve promising long-term results.

Keywords

Tensile bond strengths Failure type CAD/CAM Resin composite Air abrasion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Coltene/Whaledent for providing the tested materials.

Authors’ contributions

Marcel Reymus: performed experiments, wrote manuscript.

Malgorzata Roos: performed statistical analyses, approval of final manuscript.

Marlis Eichberger: assistance by experiments.

Daniel Edelhoff: provision of the infrastructure, approval of final manuscript.

Reinhard Hickel: provision of the infrastructure, approval of final manuscript.

Bogna Stawarczyk: idea, experimental design, hypothesis, performed statistical analyses, and wrote manuscript.

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Prosthodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y (2009) A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen J-F, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M (2012) Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 28:529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Göncü Başaran E, Ayna E, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV (2011) Load-bearing capacity of handmade and computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing-fabricated three-unit fixed dental prostheses of particulate filler composite. Acta Odontol Scand 69:144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Güth JF, Almeida E, Silva JS, Ramberger M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2012) Treatment concept with CAD/CAM-fabricated high-density polymer temporary restorations. J Esthet Res Dent 24:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miyazaki T, Hotta Y (2011) CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aus Dent J 56:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magne P, Schlichting LH, Maia HP, Baratieri LN (2010) In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent 104:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlichting LH, Maia HP, Baratieri LN, Magne P (2011) Novel-design ultra-thin CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic occlusal veneers for the treatment of severe dental erosion. J Prosthet Dent 105:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stawarczyk B, Sener B, Trottmann A, Roos M, Oezcan M, Haemmerle CH (2012) Discoloration of manually fabricated resins and industrially fabricated CAD/CAM blocks versus glass-ceramic: effect of storage media, duration, and subsequent polishing. Dent Mater J 31:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie N (2015) Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig 19:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I (2016) Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 115:199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, Güth J-F (2015) Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 55:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill EE (2007) Dental cements for definitive luting: a review and practical clinical considerations. Dent Clin N Am 5:643–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carpena Lopes G, Narciso Baratieri L, de Andrada C, Mauro A, Vieira LCC (2002) Dental adhesion: present state of the art and future perspectives. Quintessence Int 33:213–224Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mobilio N, Fasiol A, Catapano S (2016) Qualitative evaluation of the adesive interface between lithium disilicate, luting composite and natural tooth. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 7(1–2):1–3Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Souza EM, De Munck J, Pongprueksa P, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B (2016) Correlative analysis of cement–dentin interfaces using an interfacial fracture toughness and micro-tensile bond strength approach. Dent Mater 32(12):1575–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soares CJ, Giannini M, MTd O, Paulillo LAMS, Martins LRM (2004) Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. J Appl Oral Sci 12:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stawarczyk B, Basler T, Ender A, Roos M, Özcan M, Hämmerle C (2012) Effect of surface conditioning with airborne-particle abrasion on the tensile strength of polymeric CAD/CAM crowns luted with self-adhesive and conventional resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 107:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie N (2015) Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig 19:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G, Irie M, Yoshida Y, van Meerbeek B (2017) Sandblasting may damage the surface of composite CAD–CAM blocks. Dent Mater 33:e124–e135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferracane JL (2011) Resin composite—state of the art. Dent Mater 27(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wegner SM, Gerdes W, Kern M 2002 Effect of different artificial aging conditions on ceramic-composite bond strength. Int J Prosthodont 15:267–272Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoshida K, Kamada K, Atsuta M (2001) Effects of two silane coupling agents, a bonding agent, and thermal cycling on the bond strength of a CAD/CAM composite material cemented with two resin luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 85(2):184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lung CYK, Matinlinna JP (2012) Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 28(5):467–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Atsu SS, Kilicarslan MA, Kucukesmen HC, Aka PS (2006) Effect of zirconium-oxide ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength to adhesive resin. J Prosthet Dent 95(6):430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palitsch A, Hannig M, Ferger P, Balkenhol M (2012) Bonding of acrylic denture teeth to MMA/PMMA and light-curing denture base materials: the role of conditioning liquids. J Dent 40:210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diem K, Lentner (1970) Scientific tables: 555Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilbert S, Keul C, Roos M, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B (2016) Bonding between CAD/CAM resin and resin composite cements dependent on bonding agents: three different in vitro test methods. Clin Oral Investig 20:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baehr N, Keul C, Edelhoff D, Eichberger M, Roos M, Gernet W et al (2013) Effect of different adhesives combined with two resin composite cements on shear bond strength to polymeric CAD/CAM materials. Dent Mater J 32:492–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keul C, Martin A, Wimmer T, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B (2013) Tensile bond strength of PMMA-and composite-based CAD/CAM materials to luting cements after different conditioning methods. Int J Adhes Adhes 46:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Özcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GAP, Bottino MA (2007) Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 23(10):1276–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A et al (2010) Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 26(2):e100-e21Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stawarczyk B, Hartmann L, Hartmann R, Roos M, Ender A, Özcan M, Sailer I, Hämmerle CHF (2012) Impact of Gluma Desensitizer on the tensile strength of zirconia crowns bonded to dentin: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 16(1):201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M (2003) Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 89(3):268–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Conservative Dentistry and PeriodontologyUniversity Hospital, LMU MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention InstituteUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Prosthetic DentistryUniversity Hospital, LMU MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations