Effect of different surface treatments on resin-matrix CAD/CAM ceramics bonding to dentin: in vitro study

BMC Oral Health. 2022 Dec 23;22(1):635. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02674-5.

Abstract

Background: Evaluating the effect of different surface treatment methods on the micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) of two different resin-matrix computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics (RMCs).

Methods: A standardized inlay preparations were performed on 100 intact maxillary premolars. According to the type of the restorative material, the teeth were randomly divided into two equally sized groups (n = 50): (polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic) and resin-based composites (Lava Ultimate)). The inlays were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology. In each group, the specimens were randomly assigned to five subgroups (n = 10) according to the surface treatment method: group 1 used was the control group (no surface treatment); group 2, was treated with air abrasion with 50 μm Al2O3 (A) and universal adhesive (UA); group 3, was treated with air abrasion with 50 μm Al2O3 (A) and silane coupling agent (S); group 4, was treated with hydrofluoric acid (HF) and universal adhesive (UA) and group 5, was treated with Hydrofluoric acid (HF) + silane coupling agent (S). The inlays were then cemented to their respective preparations using dual-cure self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200, 3 M ESPE) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The µTBS test was conducted in all groups, and stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope were used to inspect the failure mode. The data were statistically analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc multiple comparison tests at a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results: Surface treatments significantly increased the µTBS of the materials compared to the control group (p < 0.05). For CAD/CAM RBCs, the µTBS value highest in group 2 whereas, for PICN, the µTBS value was highest in group 3. Cohesive failure of CAD/CAM restorative material was the most predominant mode of failure in all treated groups, whereas adhesive failure at restoration-cement interface was the most predominant failure mode in the control group.

Conclusion: Surface treatments increase the µTBS of resin-matrix CAD/CAM ceramics to tooth structure. Air abrasion followed by universal adhesive and hydrofluoric acid followed by silane application appears to be the best strategies for optimizing the bond strength of CAD/CAM RBCs and PICN respectively.

Keywords: CAD/CAM; Hybrid ceramics; Indirect restorations; Inlays; Micro-tensile bond strength; Nano-ceramics; Polymer-infiltrated ceramics; Resin-based composites; Resin-matrix ceramics.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Air Abrasion, Dental
  • Bicuspid
  • Ceramics / chemistry
  • Computer-Aided Design
  • Dental Bonding*
  • Dental Materials / chemistry
  • Dentin
  • Humans
  • Hydrofluoric Acid / chemistry
  • Materials Testing
  • Resin Cements / chemistry
  • Silanes* / chemistry
  • Surface Properties

Substances

  • Dental Materials
  • Hydrofluoric Acid
  • Resin Cements
  • Silanes