IADR Abstract Archives
Adhesive Applications' Effect on Aged Cad/Cam Blocks Repair Bond Strength
Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the repair bond strength of aged resin-based CAD/CAM blocks after surface treatment and different adhesive applications.
Methods: Two CAD/CAM blocks (Lava Ultimate and Cerasmart) were selected for the study. One hundred twenty specimens were fabricated from each block. The samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for six months. All samples were sandblasted with aluminum oxide. Specimens were randomly divided into six groups for the following different adhesive procedures: Group 1: control group (no adhesive application); Group 2: GC universal hydrophobic bond; Group 3: GC universal adhesive system; Group 4: silane+gc universal adhesive system; Group 5: 9% hydrofluoric acid+silane+gc universal adhesive system; and Group 6: Monobond Plus+GC universal hydrophobic bond. Repair restorations were performed with a posterior composite resin (Nova Compo HS). The specimens were stored in distilled water for one week after applying the repair composite resin. The specimens were subjected to micro shear bond strength testing at a 1 mm/min crosshead speed until failure. Data were analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test (p<0.05). Failure types of the samples were determined by stereomicroscope.
Results: For both CAD/CAM materials, a statistically significant difference was observed between the control group and adhesive-applied groups (p<0.05). The materials were compared, and no statistical difference was observed between the control groups of Lava and Cerasmart. A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups with adhesive applications (p<0.05). Both adhesion and cohesion fracture patterns were observed in the Lava and Cerasmart CAD/CAM samples.
Conclusions: Aluminum oxide sandblasting alone is not sufficient for repairing CAD/CAM blocks. Different adhesive applications increased the repair bond strength of CAD/CAM blocks. Except for the control group, the repair bond strength values of the Lava are significantly higher than those of Cerasmart.
Methods: Two CAD/CAM blocks (Lava Ultimate and Cerasmart) were selected for the study. One hundred twenty specimens were fabricated from each block. The samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for six months. All samples were sandblasted with aluminum oxide. Specimens were randomly divided into six groups for the following different adhesive procedures: Group 1: control group (no adhesive application); Group 2: GC universal hydrophobic bond; Group 3: GC universal adhesive system; Group 4: silane+gc universal adhesive system; Group 5: 9% hydrofluoric acid+silane+gc universal adhesive system; and Group 6: Monobond Plus+GC universal hydrophobic bond. Repair restorations were performed with a posterior composite resin (Nova Compo HS). The specimens were stored in distilled water for one week after applying the repair composite resin. The specimens were subjected to micro shear bond strength testing at a 1 mm/min crosshead speed until failure. Data were analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test (p<0.05). Failure types of the samples were determined by stereomicroscope.
Results: For both CAD/CAM materials, a statistically significant difference was observed between the control group and adhesive-applied groups (p<0.05). The materials were compared, and no statistical difference was observed between the control groups of Lava and Cerasmart. A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups with adhesive applications (p<0.05). Both adhesion and cohesion fracture patterns were observed in the Lava and Cerasmart CAD/CAM samples.
Conclusions: Aluminum oxide sandblasting alone is not sufficient for repairing CAD/CAM blocks. Different adhesive applications increased the repair bond strength of CAD/CAM blocks. Except for the control group, the repair bond strength values of the Lava are significantly higher than those of Cerasmart.