Bond strength between temporary 3D printable resin and conventional resin composite: influence of cleaning methods and air-abrasion parameters

Abstract

ObjectivesThe influence of different cleaning methods, air-abrasion parameters, and aging on shear bond strength (SBS) and tensile bond strength (TBS) of 3D resin luted to composite resin.Materials and methodsNine hundred resin substrates were 3D printed (D20II, Rapid Shape) and cleaned with either isopropanol (ISO), butyldiglycol-based solution (BUT), or centrifugation (CEN). After 24-h storage in 37 °C water, specimens were air-abraded (mean particle size 50 µm; n = 60) with either alumina at 0.1 MPa (AL0.1) or 0.4 MPa (AL0.4) and glass pearls at 0.1 MPa (GP0.1) and 0.4 MPa (GP0.4) or conditioned with visio.link (control) and luted with PanaviaV5. Initially (24 h, 37 °C water storage) or after aging (10,000 thermal cycles), SBS and TBS were measured, and fracture types were examined. Surface free energy (SFE) and roughness (Ra) were determined after air-abrasion. Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Kruskal–Wallis H, Mann–Whitney U, chi-square, and partial eta-squared were computed.ResultsSBS measurements presented higher values than TBS (p < 0.001–0.033). Within the pretreatment groups, CEN showed the highest SBS and TBS values compared to cleaning with ISO or BUT (p < 0.001–0.040). Pretreatment with GP0.1 displayed the lowest bond strength values (p < 0.001–0.049), and mostly adhesive fractures occurred. The highest Ra values (p < 0.001) were observed for AL0.4 pretreatment.ConclusionsPretreatment with AL0.4 and the control group mainly presented the highest bond strength values. Thermocycling had a positive effect on the bond strength.Clinical relevanceAccording to this study, 3D-printed restorations should be pretreated with AL0.4 or with visio.link before adhesive luting, regardless of their cleaning.