N Bashary, J Brewster, P Gill, M N Janal, M Özcan, N Al-Haj Husain, Y Zhang
{"title":"CAD/CAM 混合修复材料和通用粘合剂的长期粘合功效。","authors":"N Bashary, J Brewster, P Gill, M N Janal, M Özcan, N Al-Haj Husain, Y Zhang","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2455Bashary07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In-office and lab milled prostheses are the staple for indirect restorations. It is therefore critical to determine their long-term bonding durability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CAD/ CAM blocks of two classes of restorative materials: 1) a nano-ceramic reinforced polymer matrix (NCPM) and, 2) a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) were bonded using four different universal adhesives (UA) and silane systems. A lithium disilicate glassceramic (LDS) was used as a reference. The blocks were bisected and bonded with different UA/resin-cement pairs. Bonded blocks were then cut into 1.0x1.0x12.0 mm bar specimens for microtensile bond testing. Half the bars were subjected to bond strength testing immediately and the other half after aging by 50,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to compare mean bond strength among groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NCPM presented consistently high bond strength regardless of bonding techniques, while the bond strength of PICN and LDS were lower when bonded with UA relative to traditional silanes. The more hydrophilic UA produced higher bond strengths.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Glass-ceramics exhibited lower bond strength with UA than the conventional etch-rinse-silane techniques. However, UAs preserved bonding interface in the long-term.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>NCPM displayed superior bond strength relative to PICN and LDS regardless of the type of adhesives and bonding techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Bonding Efficacy of CAD/CAM Hybrid Restorative Materials and Universal Adhesives.\",\"authors\":\"N Bashary, J Brewster, P Gill, M N Janal, M Özcan, N Al-Haj Husain, Y Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1922/EJPRD_2455Bashary07\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In-office and lab milled prostheses are the staple for indirect restorations. It is therefore critical to determine their long-term bonding durability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CAD/ CAM blocks of two classes of restorative materials: 1) a nano-ceramic reinforced polymer matrix (NCPM) and, 2) a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) were bonded using four different universal adhesives (UA) and silane systems. A lithium disilicate glassceramic (LDS) was used as a reference. The blocks were bisected and bonded with different UA/resin-cement pairs. Bonded blocks were then cut into 1.0x1.0x12.0 mm bar specimens for microtensile bond testing. Half the bars were subjected to bond strength testing immediately and the other half after aging by 50,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to compare mean bond strength among groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NCPM presented consistently high bond strength regardless of bonding techniques, while the bond strength of PICN and LDS were lower when bonded with UA relative to traditional silanes. The more hydrophilic UA produced higher bond strengths.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Glass-ceramics exhibited lower bond strength with UA than the conventional etch-rinse-silane techniques. However, UAs preserved bonding interface in the long-term.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>NCPM displayed superior bond strength relative to PICN and LDS regardless of the type of adhesives and bonding techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2455Bashary07\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2455Bashary07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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
摘要
目的：诊室和实验室研磨的修复体是间接修复的主要材料。因此，确定其长期粘接耐久性至关重要：两类修复材料的 CAD/ CAM 块：方法：使用四种不同的通用粘合剂（UA）和硅烷系统粘接两类修复材料的 CAD/ CAM 块：1）纳米陶瓷增强聚合物基质（NCPM）；2）聚合物渗透陶瓷网络（PICN）。以二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷（LDS）为参照物。块体被一分为二，并用不同的 UA/树脂-水泥对进行粘接。然后将粘结块切割成 1.0x1.0x12.0 毫米的棒状试样，进行微拉伸粘结测试。一半的棒材立即进行粘接强度测试，另一半在 5°C 至 55°C 之间经过 50,000 次热循环老化后进行粘接强度测试。采用方差分析和事后检验来比较各组之间的平均粘接强度：结果：无论采用哪种粘接技术，NCPM 的粘接强度都很高，而与传统硅烷相比，用 UA 粘接时 PICN 和 LDS 的粘接强度较低。亲水性更强的 UA 产生的粘接强度更高：讨论：与传统的蚀刻-冲洗-硅烷技术相比，玻璃陶瓷与 UA 的粘接强度较低。讨论：与传统的蚀刻-冲洗-硅烷技术相比，玻璃陶瓷与 UA 的粘接强度较低，但 UA 可长期保持粘接界面：意义：无论使用哪种粘合剂和粘合技术，NCPM 的粘合强度都优于 PICN 和 LDS。
Long-Term Bonding Efficacy of CAD/CAM Hybrid Restorative Materials and Universal Adhesives.
Objectives: In-office and lab milled prostheses are the staple for indirect restorations. It is therefore critical to determine their long-term bonding durability.
Methods: CAD/ CAM blocks of two classes of restorative materials: 1) a nano-ceramic reinforced polymer matrix (NCPM) and, 2) a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) were bonded using four different universal adhesives (UA) and silane systems. A lithium disilicate glassceramic (LDS) was used as a reference. The blocks were bisected and bonded with different UA/resin-cement pairs. Bonded blocks were then cut into 1.0x1.0x12.0 mm bar specimens for microtensile bond testing. Half the bars were subjected to bond strength testing immediately and the other half after aging by 50,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to compare mean bond strength among groups.
Results: NCPM presented consistently high bond strength regardless of bonding techniques, while the bond strength of PICN and LDS were lower when bonded with UA relative to traditional silanes. The more hydrophilic UA produced higher bond strengths.
Discussion: Glass-ceramics exhibited lower bond strength with UA than the conventional etch-rinse-silane techniques. However, UAs preserved bonding interface in the long-term.
Significance: NCPM displayed superior bond strength relative to PICN and LDS regardless of the type of adhesives and bonding techniques.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
