Kaptan A, Ozel BO, Eren D, Ozdemir DD, Mehrican S

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 31
Paginas: 22-32
Archivo PDF: 405.43 Kb.

RESUMEN

Evaluar la resistencia de unión al corte (SBS) del cemento de resina autoadhesivo cuando se utiliza con dos materiales diferentes de diseño asistido por computadora (CAD) y fabricación asistida por computadora (CAM) después de varios tratamientos superficiales. Se prepararon muestras de bloques CAD-CAM de resina Lava Ultimate (LU) y cerámica feldespática Vita Mark II (VM) con un espesor de 1,5mm, y se obtuvieron un total de 90 muestras (N=90), con cinco muestras de cada bloque. Las muestras se dividieron en los siguientes cinco grupos según los tratamientos superficiales (n=9): grupo 1, sin tratar (control); grupo 2, grabado con ácido fluorhídrico al 5%; grupo 3, irradiación con láser Er: YAG; grupo 4, recubrimiento triboquímico de sílice (Cojet); y grupo 5, aire-abrasión con Al2O3. Después de la aplicación de silano, se aplicó cemento de resina sobre una matriz transparente (diámetro, 3mm; altura, 2mm) sobre los bloques. La SBS se determinó usando un dispositivo de prueba universal a una velocidad de cruceta de 1mm/min. Se utilizaron análisis de varianza bidireccional (ANOVA) y pruebas post hoc de Tukey para analizar los valores de SBS. LU mostró el valor más alto de SBS en el grupo 4. Los valores promedio de SBS en los grupos 3 y fueron más bajos que en el grupo de control (p‹0,05). Cuando se examinó VM, mientras que todos los tratamientos superficiales aumentaron significativamente los valores de SBS, el valor más alto de SBS se observó en el grupo 4 (p‹0,05). Este estudio reveló que todos los tratamientos de superficie utilizados afectaron negativamente los valores de resistencia de la unión del cemento de resina autoadhesivo a LU, a excepción de la aplicación Cojet. Los valores de SBS del cemento de resina con VM aumentaron en todos los grupos de aplicación de tratamiento de superficie.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Altan B., Cinar S., Tuncelli B. Evaluation of shear bond strength of zirconia-basedmonolithic CAD-CAM materials to resin cement after different surface treatments. Niger J Clin Pract 2019; 22: 1475-1482.

2. Davidowitz G., Kotick P.G. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 559-70, ix.

3. Sampaio F., Özcan M., Gimenez T.C., Moreira M., Tedesco T.K., Morimoto S. Effects of manufacturing methods on the survival rate of ceramic and indirect composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019; 31: 561-571.

4. McLaren E.A., Whiteman Y.Y. Ceramics: rationale for material selection. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ : 1995) 2010; 31: 666-8, 670, 672 passim; quiz 680, 700.

5. Yildiz C., Vanlıoğlu B.A., Evren B., Uludamar A., Kulak-Ozkan Y. Fracture resistance of manually and CAD/CAM manufactured ceramic onlays. J Prosthodont 2013; 22: 537-542.

6. Kirmali O., Barutcugil C., Harorli O., Kapdan A., Er K. Resin cement to indirect composite resin bonding: effect of various surface treatments. Scanning 2015; 37: 89-94.

7. Sonmez N., Gultekin P. Evaluation of five CAD/CAM materials by microstructural characterization and mechanical tests: a comparative in vitro study. 2018; 18: 5.

8. Sen N., Us Y.O. Mechanical and optical properties of monolithic CAD-CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 593-599.

9. Lauvahutanon S., Takahashi H., Shiozawa M., Iwasaki N., Asakawa Y., Oki M., Finger W.J., Arksornnukit M. Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J 2014; 33: 705-10.

10. Rocca G.T., Bonnafous F., Rizcalla N., Krejci I. A technique to improve the esthetic aspects of CAD/CAM composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104: 273-5.

11. Kimyai S., Oskoee S.S., Mohammadi N., Rikhtegaran S., Bahari M., Oskoee P.A., Vahedpour H. Effect of different mechanical and chemical surface treatments on the repaired bond strength of an indirect composite resin. Lasers in medical science 2015; 30: 653-9.

12. Krejci I., Daher R. Stress distribution difference between Lava Ultimate full crowns and IPS e.max CAD full crowns on a natural tooth and on tooth-shaped implant abutments. Odontology 2017; 105: 254-256.

13. Reymus M., Roos M., Eichberger M., Edelhoff D., Hickel R., Stawarczyk B. Bonding to new CAD/CAM resin composites: influence of air abrasion and conditioning agents as pretreatment strategy. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23: 529-538.

14. Gomes A.L., Ramos J.C., Santos-del Riego S., Montero J., Albaladejo A. Thermocycling effect on microshear bond strength to zirconia ceramic using Er:YAG and tribochemical silica coating as surface conditioning. Lasers Med Sci 2015; 30: 787-95.

15. Cavalcanti A.N., Foxton R.M., Watson T.F., Oliveira M.T., Giannini M., Marchi G.M. Bond strength of resin cements to a zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 280-7.

16. Nagasawa Y., Eda Y., Shigeta H., Ferrari M., Nakajima H., Hibino Y. Effect of sandblasting and/or priming treatment on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to CAD/CAM blocks. Odontology 2022; 110: 70-80.

17. Papadopoulos K., Pahinis K,, Saltidou K,, Dionysopoulos D,, Tsitrou E. Evaluation of the Surface Characteristics of Dental CAD/CAM Materials after Different Surface Treatments. Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 2020; 13.

18. El Zohairy A.A., De Gee A.J., Mohsen M.M., Feilzer A.J. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 575-83.

19. Ozcan M., Barbosa S.H., Melo R.M., Galhano G.A., Bottino M.A. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1276-82.

20. Peumans M., Valjakova E.B., De Munck J., Mishevska C.B., Van Meerbeek B. Bonding Effectiveness of Luting Composites to Different CAD/CAM Materials. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18: 289-302.

21. Della Bona A., Anusavice K.J. Microstructure, composition, and etching topography of dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 159-67.

22. Strasser T., Preis V., Behr M., Rosentritt M. Roughness, surface energy, and superficial damages of CAD/CAM materials after surface treatment. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22: 2787-2797.

23. Sismanoglu S., Yildirim-Bilmez Z., Erten-Taysi A., Ercal P. Influence of different surface treatments and universal adhesives on the repair of CAD-CAM composite resins: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 238.e1-238.e9.

24. Hooshmand T., Parvizi S., Keshvad A. Effect of surface acid etching on the biaxial flexural strength of two hot-pressed glass ceramics. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 415-9.

25. Elsaka S.E. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J 2015; 34: 161-7.

26. Turker N., Buyukkaplan U. The effects of different surface treatments on the shear bond strengths of two dual-cure resin cements to CAD/CAM restorative materials. 2020; 12: 189-196.

27. Kimyai S., Mohammadi N., Navimipour E.J., Rikhtegaran S. Comparison of the effect of three mechanical surface treatments on the repair bond strength of a laboratory composite. Photomed Laser Surg 2010; 28 Suppl 2: S25-30.

28. Burnett L.H., Jr., Shinkai R.S., Eduardo C.de P. Tensile bond strength of a one-bottle adhesive system to indirect composites treated with Er:YAG laser, air abrasion, or fluoridric acid. Photomed Laser Surg 2004; 22: 351-6.

29. Akın H., Ozkurt Z., Kırmalı O., Kazazoglu E., Ozdemir A.K. Shear bond strength of resin cement to zirconia ceramic after aluminum oxide sandblasting and various laser treatments. Photomed Laser Surg 2011; 29: 797-802.

30. Kirmali O., Akin H., Kapdan A. Evaluation of the surface roughness of zirconia ceramics after different surface treatments. Acta Odontol Scand 2014; 72: 432-9.

31. Yoshihara K., Nagaoka N., Maruo Y., Nishigawa G., Irie M., Yoshida Y., Van Meerbeek B. Sandblasting may damage the surface of composite CAD-CAM blocks. Dent Mater 2017; 33: e124-e135.