Bond strength of additively manufactured composite resins to dentin and titanium when bonded with dual-polymerizing resin cements

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0002-4450-2091
dc.authorid0000-0001-9700-5534
dc.authorid0000-0002-7101-363X
dc.authorid0000-0003-1751-9207
dc.authorid0000-0003-4570-9067
dc.authorid0000-0002-3094-7487
dc.contributor.authorDonmez, Mustafa Borga
dc.contributor.authorCakmak, Gulce
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Deniz
dc.contributor.authorSchimmel, Martin
dc.contributor.authorAbou-Ayash, Samir
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Burak
dc.contributor.authorPeutzfeldt, Anne
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-24T12:31:17Z
dc.date.available2026-01-24T12:31:17Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentAlanya Alaaddin Keykubat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem. Additively manufactured composite resins for definitive restorations have been recently introduced. The bond strength between these composite resins and different substrates has not been extensively studied. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the shear bond strength (SBS) between additively manufactured composite resins and dentin and titanium substrates and compare those with the SBS between subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic and the same substrates (dentin and titanium), when different dual-polymerizing resin cements were used. Material and methods. One hundred and eighty cylinder-shaped specimens (& Oslash;5x5 mm) were prepared from 3 materials recommended for definitive restorations: an additively manufactured composite resin (Crowntec [CT]); an additively manufactured hybrid composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]); and a subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Enamic [EN]) (n=60). Specimens were randomly divided into six subgroups to be cemented to the two substrates (dentin and titanium; n=30) with 1 of 3 resin cements (RelyX Universal, Panavia V5, and Variolink Esthetic DC) (n=10). The restoration surface to be bonded was treated according to the respective manufacturer's recommendations. Dentin surfaces were treated according to the resin cement (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive for RelyX Universal, Panavia V5 Tooth Primer for Panavia V5, and Adhese Universal for Variolink Esthetic DC), while titanium surfaces were airborne-particle abraded, and only the specimens paired with Panavia V5 were treated with a ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus). SBS was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a microscope at x12 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (a=.05). Results. When SBS to dentin was considered, only restorative material, as a main factor, had a significant effect (P<.001); EN had the highest SBS (P<.001), while the difference in SBS values of CT and VS was not significant (P=.145). As for SBS to titanium, the factors restorative material and resin cement and their interaction had a significant effect (P<.001). Within each resin cement, EN had the highest SBS to titanium (P<.001), and within each restorative material, Variolink resulted in the lowest SBS (P<.010). Overall, EN and RelyX were associated with the highest SBS to titanium (P<.013). Mixed failures were predominant in most groups. Conclusions. Regardless of the substrate or the resin cement used, the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic had higher shear bond strength than the additively manufactured composite resins. The SBS of the additively manufactured composite resins, whether bonded to dentin or titanium, were not significantly different from each other. Regardless of the restorative material, Variolink DC resulted in the lowest SBS for titanium surfaces. (J Prosthet Dent 2024;132:1067.e1-e8)
dc.description.sponsorshipSwiss Society of Reconstructive Dentistry (SSRD) Research Fund Spring [2022/1b]
dc.description.sponsorshipSupported by the Swiss Society of Reconstructive Dentistry (SSRD) Research Fund Spring 2022/1b. Dr Gulce Cakmak is the grant recipient.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.003
dc.identifier.endpage106700000000
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913
dc.identifier.issn1097-6841
dc.identifier.issue5
dc.identifier.pmid37183123
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85159210038
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage10670
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.003
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12868/5779
dc.identifier.volume132
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001356336300001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMosby-Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260121
dc.subjectContraction Stress
dc.subjectConversion
dc.subjectThickness
dc.subjectFiller
dc.titleBond strength of additively manufactured composite resins to dentin and titanium when bonded with dual-polymerizing resin cements
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu