IADR Abstract Archives
Bond Strength Onto CAD/CAM Blocks Using an Etch-and-prime Ceramic Agent
Objectives: This study evaluated the bonding effectiveness of the ceramic agent Monobond Etch & Prime (Ivoclar Vivadent) onto five different CAD/CAM blocks using a micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) approach upon 1-week and 6-month aging.
Methods: Five different CAD/CAM blocks (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona; Cerasmart, GC; e.Max CAD, Empress CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent; Vita Enamic, Vita) were cut in blocks of 4-mm thickness and subjected to one of two surface treatments: HF: 5% hydrofluoric acid (Ceramic Etching Gel, Ivoclar Vivadent) applied for 20-60 sec (depending on CAD/CAM block) + Monobond Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent) applied in a thin coat for 60 sec + air-thinned, uncured coat of Heliobond (Ivoclar Vivadent); Mb-E&P: Monobond Etch & Prime applied with gentle agitation for 20 sec, let to react for 40 sec, rinsed thoroughly and air-dried. Sections of the same group were luted together (n=3 sandwich specimens/group) using a dual-cure composite cement (Calibra Ceram, Dentsply Sirona). After 1-week water storage at 37°C, the sandwich specimens were sectioned in rectangular micro-specimens and trimmed at the interface to a dumbbell shape (1.1-mm diameter). One half of the specimens were immediately tested (‘immediate’ µTBS), the other half after 6-month water storage (‘aged’ µTBS). Data were statistically analyzed with 3-way ANOVA (p<.05).
Results: No difference in µTBS was found for any of the CAD/CAM blocks when either the HF or Mb-E&P bonding protocol was applied, except for e.Max CAD, for which the immediate µTBS was significantly higher for the HF than the Mb-E&P bonding protocol. A reduced bond strength upon aging was observed for both the HF and Mb-E&P bonding protocol, this for all CAD/CAM blocks except Empress_Mb-E&P (Table).
Conclusions: Overall, the simpler-to-use one-component etch-and-prime ceramic agent resulted in an equally efficient bond to the diverse CAD/CAM blocks investigated as the classical protocol consisting of separate HF etching and silane priming.
Methods: Five different CAD/CAM blocks (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona; Cerasmart, GC; e.Max CAD, Empress CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent; Vita Enamic, Vita) were cut in blocks of 4-mm thickness and subjected to one of two surface treatments: HF: 5% hydrofluoric acid (Ceramic Etching Gel, Ivoclar Vivadent) applied for 20-60 sec (depending on CAD/CAM block) + Monobond Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent) applied in a thin coat for 60 sec + air-thinned, uncured coat of Heliobond (Ivoclar Vivadent); Mb-E&P: Monobond Etch & Prime applied with gentle agitation for 20 sec, let to react for 40 sec, rinsed thoroughly and air-dried. Sections of the same group were luted together (n=3 sandwich specimens/group) using a dual-cure composite cement (Calibra Ceram, Dentsply Sirona). After 1-week water storage at 37°C, the sandwich specimens were sectioned in rectangular micro-specimens and trimmed at the interface to a dumbbell shape (1.1-mm diameter). One half of the specimens were immediately tested (‘immediate’ µTBS), the other half after 6-month water storage (‘aged’ µTBS). Data were statistically analyzed with 3-way ANOVA (p<.05).
Results: No difference in µTBS was found for any of the CAD/CAM blocks when either the HF or Mb-E&P bonding protocol was applied, except for e.Max CAD, for which the immediate µTBS was significantly higher for the HF than the Mb-E&P bonding protocol. A reduced bond strength upon aging was observed for both the HF and Mb-E&P bonding protocol, this for all CAD/CAM blocks except Empress_Mb-E&P (Table).
Conclusions: Overall, the simpler-to-use one-component etch-and-prime ceramic agent resulted in an equally efficient bond to the diverse CAD/CAM blocks investigated as the classical protocol consisting of separate HF etching and silane priming.