{"title":"Bond strength of different resin-based cements to 3D-printed permanent restorations.","authors":"Engin Kariper, Aylin Cilingir","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the shear bond strength of different primers with adhesive cements to 3D printed restorations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>72 3D-printed restorations (Formlabs permanent crown resin) and nano-hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) resin cylinders prepared and assigned to two groups, according to G-Multi Primer (GMP) with G-Cem One (GCO) and Clearfil ceramic primer plus (CCP) with Panavia F2.0 (PF) cements and three subgroups (n=9) were created for each cement: (1) control group, (2) 5,000 thermal cycles, (3) 10,000 thermal cycles. 3D-printed restorations were embedded in Teflon molds and cemented with nano-hybrid composite resin cylinders and a shear bond strength test was performed according to group. Failure modes were observed with stereomicroscope (30x), and surface morphology was evaluated with SEM analysis (100x and 2,000x). Statistical analysis was performed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro Wilks tests, and for evaluating the study data, 2-way ANOVA test and post hoc Tukey HSD test were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The GCO groups exhibited significantly higher SBS values than the PF groups in the bonding of the tested 3D-printed restorations. There was no statistically significant difference in the bond strengths of tested GCO cement groups. A control group of PF cement showed significantly higher SBS values than the 5,000 and 10,000 cycling of PF groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the 5,000 and 10,000 cycling PF groups. The bonding performance was superior for the GCO group.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>This study showed that exposure to gutta-percha solvents (chloroform, orange oil and Endosolv) for 5 minutes did not affect the bond strengths of both iRoot SP (bioceramic sealer) and AH Plus (resin sealer) to root dentin.</p>","PeriodicalId":7538,"journal":{"name":"American journal of dentistry","volume":"38 1","pages":"39-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the shear bond strength of different primers with adhesive cements to 3D printed restorations.
Methods: 72 3D-printed restorations (Formlabs permanent crown resin) and nano-hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram) resin cylinders prepared and assigned to two groups, according to G-Multi Primer (GMP) with G-Cem One (GCO) and Clearfil ceramic primer plus (CCP) with Panavia F2.0 (PF) cements and three subgroups (n=9) were created for each cement: (1) control group, (2) 5,000 thermal cycles, (3) 10,000 thermal cycles. 3D-printed restorations were embedded in Teflon molds and cemented with nano-hybrid composite resin cylinders and a shear bond strength test was performed according to group. Failure modes were observed with stereomicroscope (30x), and surface morphology was evaluated with SEM analysis (100x and 2,000x). Statistical analysis was performed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro Wilks tests, and for evaluating the study data, 2-way ANOVA test and post hoc Tukey HSD test were used.
Results: The GCO groups exhibited significantly higher SBS values than the PF groups in the bonding of the tested 3D-printed restorations. There was no statistically significant difference in the bond strengths of tested GCO cement groups. A control group of PF cement showed significantly higher SBS values than the 5,000 and 10,000 cycling of PF groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the 5,000 and 10,000 cycling PF groups. The bonding performance was superior for the GCO group.
Clinical significance: This study showed that exposure to gutta-percha solvents (chloroform, orange oil and Endosolv) for 5 minutes did not affect the bond strengths of both iRoot SP (bioceramic sealer) and AH Plus (resin sealer) to root dentin.
目的:研究不同底漆与胶粘剂对3D打印修复体的剪切结合强度。方法:制备72个3d打印修复体(Formlabs永久冠树脂)和纳米复合材料(Tetric EvoCeram)树脂圆柱体,根据G-Multi Primer (GMP)与G-Cem One (GCO)和Clearfil ceramic Primer plus (CCP)与Panavia F2.0 (PF)水泥分别分为两组,每种水泥分为三个亚组(n=9):(1)对照组,(2)5,000热循环,(3)10,000热循环。将3d打印修复体嵌入特氟龙模具中,用纳米复合树脂圆柱体胶结,按组进行剪切粘结强度测试。用体视显微镜(30倍)观察失效模式,用扫描电镜(100倍和2000倍)分析表面形貌。采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验和Shapiro Wilks检验进行统计分析,对研究数据的评价采用2-way ANOVA检验和事后Tukey HSD检验。结果:GCO组在3d打印修复体的粘接中SBS值明显高于PF组。测试的GCO水泥组的粘结强度无统计学差异。PF水泥对照组的SBS值明显高于PF组的5000和10000循环。然而,在5,000和10,000循环PF组中没有统计学上的显著差异。GCO组的粘接性能较好。临床意义:本研究表明,暴露于杜仲胶溶剂(氯仿、橙油和Endosolv) 5分钟不影响iRoot SP(生物陶瓷封口剂)和AH Plus(树脂封口剂)与牙根本质的结合强度。
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Dentistry, published by Mosher & Linder, Inc., provides peer-reviewed scientific articles with clinical significance for the general dental practitioner.