使用双聚合树脂水门汀粘合时，添加剂制造的复合树脂与牙本质和钛的粘合强度。

IF 4.3 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.003

Mustafa Borga Donmez DDS, PhD , Gülce Çakmak DDS, PhD , Deniz Yılmaz DDS, PhD , Martin Schimmel Prof Dr Med Dent, PD, MAS , Samir Abou-Ayash Prof Dr Med Dent , Burak Yilmaz DDS, PhD , Anne Peutzfeldt DDS, PhD, DrOdont

{"title":"使用双聚合树脂水门汀粘合时，添加剂制造的复合树脂与牙本质和钛的粘合强度。","authors":"Mustafa Borga Donmez DDS, PhD , Gülce Çakmak DDS, PhD , Deniz Yılmaz DDS, PhD , Martin Schimmel Prof Dr Med Dent, PD, MAS , Samir Abou-Ayash Prof Dr Med Dent , Burak Yilmaz DDS, PhD , Anne Peutzfeldt DDS, PhD, DrOdont","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Additively manufactured composite resins for definitive restorations have been recently introduced. The bond strength between these composite resins and different substrates has not been extensively studied.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the shear bond strength (SBS) between additively manufactured composite resins and dentin and titanium substrates and compare those with the SBS between subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic and the same substrates (dentin and titanium), when different dual-polymerizing resin cements were used.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>One hundred and eighty cylinder-shaped specimens (Ø5×5 mm) were prepared from 3 materials recommended for definitive restorations: an additively manufactured composite resin (Crowntec [CT]); an additively manufactured hybrid composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]); and a subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Enamic [EN]) (n=60). Specimens were randomly divided into six subgroups to be cemented to the two substrates (dentin and titanium; n=30) with 1 of 3 resin cements (RelyX Universal, Panavia V5, and Variolink Esthetic DC) (n=10). The restoration surface to be bonded was treated according to the respective manufacturer’s recommendations. Dentin surfaces were treated according to the resin cement (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive for RelyX Universal, Panavia V5 Tooth Primer for Panavia V5, and Adhese Universal for Variolink Esthetic DC), while titanium surfaces were airborne-particle abraded, and only the specimens paired with Panavia V5 were treated with a ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus). SBS was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a microscope at ×12 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When SBS to dentin was considered, only restorative material, as a main factor, had a significant effect (<em>P</em><.001); EN had the highest SBS (<em>P</em><.001), while the difference in SBS values of CT and VS was not significant (<em>P</em>=.145). As for SBS to titanium, the factors restorative material and resin cement and their interaction had a significant effect (<em>P</em><.001). Within each resin cement, EN had the highest SBS to titanium (<em>P</em><.001), and within each restorative material, Variolink resulted in the lowest SBS (<em>P</em>≤.010). Overall, EN and RelyX were associated with the highest SBS to titanium (<em>P</em>≤.013). Mixed failures were predominant in most groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Regardless of the substrate or the resin cement used, the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic had higher shear bond strength than the additively manufactured composite resins. The SBS of the additively manufactured composite resins, whether bonded to dentin or titanium, were not significantly different from each other. Regardless of the restorative material, Variolink DC resulted in the lowest SBS for titanium surfaces.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"132 5","pages":"Pages 1067.e1-1067.e8"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bond strength of additively manufactured composite resins to dentin and titanium when bonded with dual-polymerizing resin cements\",\"authors\":\"Mustafa Borga Donmez DDS, PhD , Gülce Çakmak DDS, PhD , Deniz Yılmaz DDS, PhD , Martin Schimmel Prof Dr Med Dent, PD, MAS , Samir Abou-Ayash Prof Dr Med Dent , Burak Yilmaz DDS, PhD , Anne Peutzfeldt DDS, PhD, DrOdont\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Additively manufactured composite resins for definitive restorations have been recently introduced. The bond strength between these composite resins and different substrates has not been extensively studied.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the shear bond strength (SBS) between additively manufactured composite resins and dentin and titanium substrates and compare those with the SBS between subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic and the same substrates (dentin and titanium), when different dual-polymerizing resin cements were used.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>One hundred and eighty cylinder-shaped specimens (Ø5×5 mm) were prepared from 3 materials recommended for definitive restorations: an additively manufactured composite resin (Crowntec [CT]); an additively manufactured hybrid composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]); and a subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Enamic [EN]) (n=60). Specimens were randomly divided into six subgroups to be cemented to the two substrates (dentin and titanium; n=30) with 1 of 3 resin cements (RelyX Universal, Panavia V5, and Variolink Esthetic DC) (n=10). The restoration surface to be bonded was treated according to the respective manufacturer’s recommendations. Dentin surfaces were treated according to the resin cement (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive for RelyX Universal, Panavia V5 Tooth Primer for Panavia V5, and Adhese Universal for Variolink Esthetic DC), while titanium surfaces were airborne-particle abraded, and only the specimens paired with Panavia V5 were treated with a ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus). SBS was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a microscope at ×12 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When SBS to dentin was considered, only restorative material, as a main factor, had a significant effect (<em>P</em><.001); EN had the highest SBS (<em>P</em><.001), while the difference in SBS values of CT and VS was not significant (<em>P</em>=.145). As for SBS to titanium, the factors restorative material and resin cement and their interaction had a significant effect (<em>P</em><.001). Within each resin cement, EN had the highest SBS to titanium (<em>P</em><.001), and within each restorative material, Variolink resulted in the lowest SBS (<em>P</em>≤.010). Overall, EN and RelyX were associated with the highest SBS to titanium (<em>P</em>≤.013). Mixed failures were predominant in most groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Regardless of the substrate or the resin cement used, the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic had higher shear bond strength than the additively manufactured composite resins. The SBS of the additively manufactured composite resins, whether bonded to dentin or titanium, were not significantly different from each other. Regardless of the restorative material, Variolink DC resulted in the lowest SBS for titanium surfaces.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"132 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1067.e1-1067.e8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239132300255X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239132300255X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

问题陈述：用于最终修复体的添加型复合树脂是最近才出现的。目的：本体外研究的目的是测量加成法生产的复合树脂与牙本质和钛基底之间的剪切粘结强度（SBS），并将其与减法生产的聚合物浸润陶瓷与相同基底（牙本质和钛）之间的SBS（当使用不同的双聚合树脂水门汀时）进行比较：用三种建议用于最终修复体的材料制备了 180 个圆柱形试样（Ø5×5 毫米）：添加型复合树脂（Crowntec [CT]）、添加型混合复合树脂（VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]）和减量型聚合物浸润陶瓷（Enamic [EN]）（n=60）。试样被随机分成 6 个亚组，分别用 3 种树脂粘结剂（RelyX Universal、Panavia V5 和 Variolink Esthetic DC）中的一种粘结在两种基底（牙本质和钛，n=30）上（n=10）。待粘接的修复体表面按照各生产商的建议进行处理。牙本质表面根据树脂粘接剂进行处理（RelyX Universal 使用 Scotchbond Universal Plus 粘接剂，Panavia V5 使用 Panavia V5 牙体底漆，Variolink Esthetic DC 使用 Adhese Universal），而钛表面则进行空气颗粒磨削，只有与 Panavia V5 配对的试样才使用陶瓷底漆（Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus）进行处理。SBS 在万能试验机中以 1 毫米/分钟的十字头速度进行测量。在放大到 ×12 倍的显微镜下分析失效模式。数据分析采用双向方差分析和 Tukey 诚实显著性差异检验（α=.05）：结果：当考虑对牙本质的 SBS 时，只有作为主要因素的修复材料有显著影响（PConclusions）：无论使用何种基底或树脂粘结剂，减法生产的聚合物浸润陶瓷的剪切粘结强度都高于加法生产的复合树脂。无论是与牙本质还是钛粘接，加成法制造的复合树脂的 SBS 都没有显著差异。无论使用哪种修复材料，Variolink DC 对钛表面的 SBS 都是最低的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Bond strength of additively manufactured composite resins to dentin and titanium when bonded with dual-polymerizing resin cements

Statement of problem

Additively manufactured composite resins for definitive restorations have been recently introduced. The bond strength between these composite resins and different substrates has not been extensively studied.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the shear bond strength (SBS) between additively manufactured composite resins and dentin and titanium substrates and compare those with the SBS between subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic and the same substrates (dentin and titanium), when different dual-polymerizing resin cements were used.

Material and methods

One hundred and eighty cylinder-shaped specimens (Ø5×5 mm) were prepared from 3 materials recommended for definitive restorations: an additively manufactured composite resin (Crowntec [CT]); an additively manufactured hybrid composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]); and a subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Enamic [EN]) (n=60). Specimens were randomly divided into six subgroups to be cemented to the two substrates (dentin and titanium; n=30) with 1 of 3 resin cements (RelyX Universal, Panavia V5, and Variolink Esthetic DC) (n=10). The restoration surface to be bonded was treated according to the respective manufacturer’s recommendations. Dentin surfaces were treated according to the resin cement (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive for RelyX Universal, Panavia V5 Tooth Primer for Panavia V5, and Adhese Universal for Variolink Esthetic DC), while titanium surfaces were airborne-particle abraded, and only the specimens paired with Panavia V5 were treated with a ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus). SBS was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a microscope at ×12 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05).

Results

When SBS to dentin was considered, only restorative material, as a main factor, had a significant effect (P<.001); EN had the highest SBS (P<.001), while the difference in SBS values of CT and VS was not significant (P=.145). As for SBS to titanium, the factors restorative material and resin cement and their interaction had a significant effect (P<.001). Within each resin cement, EN had the highest SBS to titanium (P<.001), and within each restorative material, Variolink resulted in the lowest SBS (P≤.010). Overall, EN and RelyX were associated with the highest SBS to titanium (P≤.013). Mixed failures were predominant in most groups.

Conclusions

Regardless of the substrate or the resin cement used, the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic had higher shear bond strength than the additively manufactured composite resins. The SBS of the additively manufactured composite resins, whether bonded to dentin or titanium, were not significantly different from each other. Regardless of the restorative material, Variolink DC resulted in the lowest SBS for titanium surfaces.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.00

自引率

13.00%

发文量

599

审稿时长

69 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.