Shear Bond Strength of Provisional 3d Printed Resin Repaired Using Different Adhesive Systems
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength of aged provisional 3D printed resin repaired with different adhesive systems. Methodology: A silane coupling agent (RelyX Ceramic Primer, S) and two adhesive systems; Adper Single Bond 2 (adh, dimethacrylate based resin) and Scotchbond Universal (Uadh, dimethacrylate based resin containing silane coupling agent), were used. Twenty-five cylindrical specimens (20×15 mm, diameter × height) were designed, 3D-printed and aged by thermocycling for 5,000 cycles. Then, specimens (n=5) were repaired/bonded according to surface treatments as follows: (1) no surface treatment (negative control), (2) Al2O3 sandblasting (positive control), (3) etching and Adper Single Bond 2 (E/Adh), (4) etching, silane coupling agent and Adper Single Bond 2 (E/S/Adh), and (5) etching and Scotchbond Universal adhesive (E/Uadh). After surface treatment, flowable resin composite was bonded to the specimen’s surface by the aid of a Teflon mold (5×3 mm, diameter×height) and light cured for 40 seconds. All bonded specimens were kept in distilled water at 37oC for 24 hours and they were subjected to shear bond strength testing using an Instron testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed by stereomicroscope (10×). Data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA. Results: The highest shear bond strength was achieved in Al2O3 sandblasting (positive control) followed by E/Uadh and E/S/Adh which were not significantly different to the positive control (p>0.05). The two lowest shear bond strength, significantly lower than the positive control (p<0.05), was observed in no surface treatment (negative control) and E/Adh, respectively. Failure modes were mostly mixed failure. Conclusion: E/Uadh and E/S/Adh are the suggested surface treatment prior to repairing aged provisional 3D printed resin due to their comparable shear bond strength to the Al2O3 sandblasting.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1. The original was not published. Or waiting to be published in another journal.
2. The original article is an academic article and research reports must pass quality assessment and peer reviewers, if needed. Authors must submit original revised thesis. The editorial department as scheduled.
3. The editorial staff will send a journal to the author of 1 published paper.
4. Comment in this article published in the journal is the owner’s opinion, not from the College of Asian Scholars.
References
Adulroj Vachirawit, C. P., Yavirach Apichai, Angkasith Pattarika (2023). Semi-permanent Restorations Just Temporary or Long-lasting Use?: A Review of the Literature: Review articles. CM Dent J, 44(1); 13-21.
Brosh, T., N. Pilo R Fau - Bichacho, R. Bichacho N Fau - Blutstein and R. Blutstein. (1997). Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent, 77(2), (0022-3913 (Print)); 122-126.
Chen, H. L., I. c. Lai Yl Fau - Chou, C.-J. Chou Ic Fau - Hu, S.-y. Hu Cj Fau - Lee and S. Y. Lee. (2008). Shear bond strength of provisional restoration materials repaired with light-cured resins. Oper Dent, 33(5); 508-515.
Cherdsatirakul, P. and W. Santisupmongkol. (2021). Residual Monomer from Dental Adhesive: A Review of the Literature. Chiang Mai Dental Journal, 42(1); 13-24.
Haneda, I., A. Almeida Jr, R. Fonseca and G. Adabo. (2017). Intraoral repair in metal-ceram ic prostheses: a clinical report. Revista de Odontologia da Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, 21; 282.
Jeong, K. W. and S. H. Kim (2019). Influence of surface treatments and repair materials on the shear bond strength of CAD/CAM provisional restorations. J Adv Prosthodont, 11(2); 95-104.
Kiomarsi, N., P. Saburian, N. Chiniforush, M. J. Karazifard and S. S. Hashemikamangar. (2017). Effect of thermocycling and surface treatment on repair bond strength of composite. 98 (1989-5488 (Print)): e945-e951.
Klaisiri, A., N. K. , T. S. and N. T. (2016). Effects of different adhesives on ceramic/resin composite bond strength. J DENT, 66(4); 344-356.
Klaisiri, A. A.-O., P. Phumpatrakom and N. Thamrongananskul. (2022). Chemical Surface Modification Methods of Resin Composite Repaired with Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement. LID - 10.1055/s-0042-1755627 [doi]. Eur J Dent.
Lim NK, S. S. (2020). Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins. J Adv Prosthodont, 12(5); 322-328.
Tyas, M. J. and M. F. Burrow. (2004). Adhesive restorative materials: a review. 49(3); 112-121.
Wiegand, A., L. Stucki, R. Hoffmann, T. Attin and B. Stawarczyk. (2015). Repairability of CAD/CAM high-density PMMA- and composite-based polymers. 19(8); 2007-2013.
Yin, H., S. Kwon, S. H. Chung and R. J. Y. Kim. (2022). Performance of Universal Adhesives in Composite Resin Repair. Biomed Res Int 2022: 7663490.
