Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. This study evaluated the shear bond strength between 3D printed provisional resin and conventional provisional resin depending on type of conventional provisional resin and different surface treatments of 3D printed resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety-six disc-shaped specimens (Ø14 mm × 20 mm thickness) were printed with resin for 3D printing (Nextdent C&B, Vertex-Dental B. V., Soesterberg, Netherlands). After postprocessing, the specimens were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=12) according to two types of conventional repair resin (methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite) and four different surface treatments: no additional treatment, air abrasion, soaking in methylmethacrylate (MMA) monomer, and soaking in MMA monomer after air abrasion. After surface treatment, each repair resin was bonded in cylindrical shape using a silicone mold Specimens were stored in 37°C distilled water for 24 hours. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed by scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA test and Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05). RESULTS. The group repaired with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment showed the highest mean shear bond strength. It was significantly higher than all four groups repaired with methylmethacrylate (P<.05). Additional surface treatments, neither mechanical nor chemical, increased the shear bond strength within methylmethacrylate groups and bis-acryl composite groups (P>.05). Failure mode analysis showed that cohesive failure was most frequent in both methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite groups. CONCLUSION. Our results suggest that when repairing 3D printed provisional restoration with conventional provisional resin, repair with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment is recommended.
Abstract
PURPOSE. This study evaluated the shear bond strength between 3D printed provisional resin and conventional provisional resin depending on type of conventional provisional resin and different surface treatments of 3D printed resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety-six disc-shaped specimens (Ø14 mm × 20 mm thickness) were printed with resin for 3D printing (Nextdent C&B, Vertex-Dental B. V., Soesterberg, Netherlands). After postprocessing, the specimens were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=12) according to two types of conventional repair resin (methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite) and four different surface treatments: no additional treatment, air abrasion, soaking in methylmethacrylate (MMA) monomer, and soaking in MMA monomer after air abrasion. After surface treatment, each repair resin was bonded in cylindrical shape using a silicone mold Specimens were stored in 37°C distilled water for 24 hours. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed by scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA test and Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05). RESULTS. The group repaired with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment showed the highest mean shear bond strength. It was significantly higher than all four groups repaired with methylmethacrylate (P<.05). Additional surface treatments, neither mechanical nor chemical, increased the shear bond strength within methylmethacrylate groups and bis-acryl composite groups (P>.05). Failure mode analysis showed that cohesive failure was most frequent in both methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite groups. CONCLUSION. Our results suggest that when repairing 3D printed provisional restoration with conventional provisional resin, repair with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment is recommended.
참고문헌 (27)
- Mainjot AK, "From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks : State of the art of indirect composites", J Dent Res, 95, pp.487~495 (2016)
- Beuer F, "Digital dentistry : an overview of recent developments for CAD", CAM generated restorations, 2008, pp.204, 505~511
- Gilbert S, "Bonding between CAD", CAM resin and resin composite cements dependent on bonding agents : three different in vitro test methods, 2016, pp.20, 227~236
- Strub JR, "Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations : current systems and future possibilities", J Am Dent Assoc, 137, pp.1289~1296 (2006)
- Kessler A, "3D Printing in Dentistry-State of the Art", Oper Dent, 45, pp.30~40 (2020)
- van Noort R, "The future of dental devices is digital", Dent Mater, 28, pp.3~12 (2012)
- Tahayeri A, "3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials", Dent Mater, 34, pp.192~200 (2018)
- Burns DR, "A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics", J Prosthet Dent, 90, pp.474~497 (2003)
- Koumjian JH, "Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations", J Prosthet Dent, 64, pp.654~657 (1990)
- Revilla-León M, "A review on chemical composition, mechanical properties, and manufacturing work flow of additively manufactured current polymers for interim dental restorations", J Esthet Restor Dent, 31, pp.51~57 (2019)
- 정기원, "Influence of surface treatments and repair materials on the shear bond strength of CAD", CAM provisional restorations, 2019, pp.11(2), 95~104[DOI]
- Mondragon E, "Shear strength of dentin and dentin bonded composites", J Adhes Dent, 3, pp.227~236 (2001)
- Oliveira AC, "Influence of chisel width on shear bond strength of composite to enamel", Revista Odonto Ciência, 24, pp.19~21 (2009)
- Sinhoreti MA, "Influence of loading types on the shear strength of the dentin-resin interface bonding", J Mater Sci Mater Med, 12, pp.39~44 (2001)
- da Costa TR, "Durability of composite repair using different surface treatments", J Dent, 40, pp.513~521 (2012)
- Ha SR, "Improving shear bond strength of temporary crown and fixed dental prosthesis resins by surface treatments", J Mater Sci, 51, pp.1463~1475 (2016)
- Brosh T, "Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites", J Prosthet Dent, 77, pp.122~126 (1997)
- Papacchini F, "Effect of intermediate agents and pre-heating of repairing resin on composite-repair bonds", Oper Dent, 32, pp.363~371 (2007)
- Papazoglou E, "Shear bond strengths for composite and autopolymerized acrylic resins bonded to acrylic resin denture teeth", J Prosthet Dent, 82, pp.573~578 (1999)
- Gilbert S, "Bonding between CAD", CAM resin and resin composite cements dependent on bonding agents : three different in vitro test methods, 2016, pp.20, 227~236
- Bähr N, "Effect of different adhesives combined with two resin composite cements on shear bond strength to polymeric CAD", CAM materials, 2013, pp.32, 492~501
- Keul C, "Tensile bond strength of PMMA-and composite-based CAD", CAM materials to luting cements after different conditioning methods, 2013, pp.46, 122~127
- Hisamatsu N, "Effect of silane primers and unfilled resin bonding agents on repair bond strength of a prosthodontic microfilled composite", J Oral Rehabil, 29, pp.644~648 (2002)
- Vallittu PK, "Wetting the repair surface with methylmethacrylate affects the transverse strength of repaired heat-polymerized resin", J Prosthet Dent, 72, pp.639~643 (1994)
- Palitsch A, "Bonding of acrylic denture teeth to MMA", PMMA and light-curing denture base materials : the role of conditioning liquids, 2012, pp.40, 210~221
- Torstenson B, "Contraction gap under composite resin restorations : effect of hygroscopic expansion and thermal stress", Oper Dent, 13, pp.24~31 (1988)
- Piwowarczyk A, "In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative materials", J Prosthet Dent, 92, pp.265~273 (2004)