» Articles » PMID: 33615613

Repair Bond Strength and Surface Topography of Resin-ceramic and Ceramic Restorative Blocks Treated by Laser and Conventional Surface Treatments

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Feb 22
PMID 33615613
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study intended to compare the repair bond strength of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks consisting of resin and feldspathic ceramics following different surface treatments using the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test. Ten specimens were prepared with 4 mm height for Vita Enamic (VE), Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Mark II (VM), and thermocycled (10,000 cycle, 5-55°C). Each material was categorized into one of five subgroups according to following surface treatments: (a) bur grinding (BG), (b) hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), (c) neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG or NY), (d) erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG or EY), and (e) erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG or ECY) laser conditioning. After surface treatment procedures, specimens were properly restored to 4 mm high with a micro-hybrid composite resin. Bar specimens (1 × 1 × 8 mm) were obtained using a low-speed cutting machine and then thermocycled (10,000 cycle, 5-55°C). The μTBS was tested at 1 mm/min crosshead speed, and failure modes were evaluated. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. LU-BG showed significantly higher μTBS (32.94 ± 5.80 MPa) compared to LU-laser groups (p < .05). VE-BG showed significantly higher μTBS (22.06 ± 4.26 MPa) compared to other VE groups (p < .05). Among the laser groups, the NY laser produced the lowest (p < .05) μTBS for LU (13.42 ± 3.44 MPa) and VE (2.27 ± 0.85 MPa), while EY showed the highest (p < .05). Laser-treated VM groups were all prefailured. VM-HF produced a higher μTBS (18.73 ± 3.75 MPa) than VM-BG (5.05 ± 1.76 MPa) (p < .05).

Citing Articles

Optical properties of repaired additively manufactured resin composites and zirconia and subtractively manufactured ceramics: a comparative study of composite resins.

Caglayan E, Sasany R, Bolat B, Hartavi D, Batgerel O, Ucar S BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):144.

PMID: 39871238 PMC: 11773952. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05538-w.


Repair protocols for indirect monolithic restorations: a literature review.

Rosa L, Pilecco R, Soares P, Rippe M, Pereira G, Valandro L PeerJ. 2024; 12:e16942.

PMID: 38406292 PMC: 10893862. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16942.


The Effect of Laser Irradiation to Surfaces of Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Fabrication Resin Blocks Coated with a Silane Coupling Agent on Bond Strength between the Resin Blocks and Composite Resin.

Ohno H, Suzuki M, Shinkai K Dent J (Basel). 2023; 11(12).

PMID: 38132428 PMC: 10742938. DOI: 10.3390/dj11120290.


Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Repair Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin-Matrix Ceramics.

Arkoy S, Ulusoy M Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(18).

PMID: 36143627 PMC: 9505560. DOI: 10.3390/ma15186314.