Impact of Different Universal Adhesives on Shear Bond Strength in Composite Repairs to Different CAD/CAM Silicate Ceramics - An In Vitro Study.

IF 1.8

The International journal of prosthodontics Pub Date : 2025-09-16 DOI:10.11607/ijp.9507

Malin Janson, Nicolai Geebelen, Christoph Matthias Schoppmeier, Anja Liebermann

{"title":"Impact of Different Universal Adhesives on Shear Bond Strength in Composite Repairs to Different CAD/CAM Silicate Ceramics - An In Vitro Study.","authors":"Malin Janson, Nicolai Geebelen, Christoph Matthias Schoppmeier, Anja Liebermann","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study evaluated the influence of various universal adhesives (UA's) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite repairs to different CAD/CAM-fabricated silicate ceramics and compared silane-containing versus non-silane-containing UA's.Material and methods: 270 rectangular specimens from three CAD/CAM ceramics types CTS (Cerec Tessera HT), IEC (IPS Empress CAD LT), and IXC (IPS e.max CAD LT) were bonded with composite resin (Ceram.x Spectra ST Flow) using UA's: PBA (Prime&Bond Active), CUB (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick), MBP (Monobond Plus), SBU (Scotchbond Universal), IBU (iBond Universal) and SBP (Scotchbond Universal Plus). Before SBS testing (MPa) specimens were thermally aged in distilled water (7 days, 37°C; 5000 cycles 5-55°C). Representative SEM images were analyzed for failure modes. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction (α < 0.05).Results: Significant SBS differences were observed across ceramics and UA's. IEC showed the highest SBS values, particularly with CUB (27.09 ± 3.75 MPa) and MBP (24.61 ± 6.36 MPa). Lowest values occurred with IXC + IBU (2.64 ± 3.74 MPa), CTS + SBP (2.05 ± 2.57 MPa), IXC + SBU (0.73 ± 0.56 MPa), and CTS + SBU (0.24 ± 0.53 MPa). IEC differed significantly from CTS and IXC (p < 0.001). Cohesive failures predominated in IEC, whereas IXC and CTS exhibited adhesive failures.Conclusions: UA type, ceramic, and microstructure significantly impact SBS in composite repairs. The selection of UA should be adapted to the type of silicate ceramic to be repaired. In this study, the UA CUB yielded the best results across all ceramic types.","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the influence of various universal adhesives (UA's) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite repairs to different CAD/CAM-fabricated silicate ceramics and compared silane-containing versus non-silane-containing UA's.

Material and methods: 270 rectangular specimens from three CAD/CAM ceramics types CTS (Cerec Tessera HT), IEC (IPS Empress CAD LT), and IXC (IPS e.max CAD LT) were bonded with composite resin (Ceram.x Spectra ST Flow) using UA's: PBA (Prime&Bond Active), CUB (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick), MBP (Monobond Plus), SBU (Scotchbond Universal), IBU (iBond Universal) and SBP (Scotchbond Universal Plus). Before SBS testing (MPa) specimens were thermally aged in distilled water (7 days, 37°C; 5000 cycles 5-55°C). Representative SEM images were analyzed for failure modes. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction (α < 0.05).

Results: Significant SBS differences were observed across ceramics and UA's. IEC showed the highest SBS values, particularly with CUB (27.09 ± 3.75 MPa) and MBP (24.61 ± 6.36 MPa). Lowest values occurred with IXC + IBU (2.64 ± 3.74 MPa), CTS + SBP (2.05 ± 2.57 MPa), IXC + SBU (0.73 ± 0.56 MPa), and CTS + SBU (0.24 ± 0.53 MPa). IEC differed significantly from CTS and IXC (p < 0.001). Cohesive failures predominated in IEC, whereas IXC and CTS exhibited adhesive failures.

Conclusions: UA type, ceramic, and microstructure significantly impact SBS in composite repairs. The selection of UA should be adapted to the type of silicate ceramic to be repaired. In this study, the UA CUB yielded the best results across all ceramic types.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同通用胶粘剂对不同CAD/CAM硅酸盐陶瓷复合修复中剪切强度影响的体外研究

目的：本研究评估了不同的通用粘合剂（UA）对不同CAD/ cam制备的硅酸盐陶瓷复合修复体剪切结合强度（SBS）的影响，并比较了含硅和不含硅烷的UA。材料和方法：将CTS （Cerec Tessera HT）、IEC （IPS Empress CAD LT）和IXC （IPS e.max CAD LT）三种CAD/CAM陶瓷的270个矩形试样与复合树脂（Ceram）粘接。使用UA的：PBA (Prime&Bond Active), CUB (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick), MBP (Monobond Plus), SBU (Scotchbond Universal), IBU （iBond Universal）和SBP （Scotchbond Universal Plus）。SBS试验（MPa）前，试样在蒸馏水中热老化（7天，37℃；5000次循环5-55℃）。对具有代表性的SEM图像进行了失效模式分析。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验，Dunn校正（α < 0.05）。结果：SBS在陶瓷和UA之间存在显著差异。IEC的SBS值最高，尤其是CUB（27.09±3.75 MPa）和MBP（24.61±6.36 MPa）。IXC + IBU（2.64±3.74 MPa）、CTS + SBP（2.05±2.57 MPa）、IXC + SBU（0.73±0.56 MPa）和CTS + SBU（0.24±0.53 MPa）最小。IEC与CTS和IXC差异显著（p < 0.001）。内聚破坏在IEC中占主导地位，而IXC和CTS则表现为黏附破坏。结论：复合材料修复中UA类型、陶瓷和显微结构对SBS有显著影响。UA的选择应与待修复硅酸盐陶瓷的类型相适应。在这项研究中，UA CUB在所有陶瓷类型中获得了最好的结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

The International journal of prosthodontics

自引率

0.00%

发文量