Abstract
The present investigation tested the effect of the cleaning method on the tensile bond strength (TBS) between one resin composite cement (RCC) and three different computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials, namely zirconia, lithium disilicate ceramic and resin composite. Ninety specimens were prepared from each CAD/CAM material (N = 270). The specimens were pre-treated respectively, divided into five subgroups and subjected to five different cleaning protocols, namely i. 37% phosphoric acid, ii. ethanol, iii. phosphoric acid + ethanol, iv. cleaning paste, v. distilled water. After cleaning, the specimens were either conditioned using a universal primer or a universal adhesive and bonded using a dual-curing RCC. After thermo-cycling (20,000x at 5 °C/55 °C), TBS and fracture patterns were evaluated. The data was analyzed using 1- and 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Scheffé and partial eta-squared (ƞP²), Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U and Chi2 tests (p < 0.05). The CAD/CAM material showed an impact on the BS while the cleaning protocol did not affect the results. Zirconia obtained the highest BS, followed by lithium-disilicate-ceramic. Resin composite resulted in the overall lowest BS. For most fracture patterns, the cohesive type occurred. All tested cleaning protocols resulted in same BS values within one CAD/CAM material indicating that the impact of the cleaning method for the restorative material seems to play a subordinate role in obtaining durable bond strength to resin composite cement. Further, it indicates that the recommended bonding protocols are well adjusted to the respective materials and might be able to compensate the impact of not accurately performed cleaning protocols.
Highlights
IntroductionClinicians have a choice of many different restoration materials depending on the indication
In modern dentistry, clinicians have a choice of many different restoration materials depending on the indication
The type of material showed an impact on the tensile bond strength (p < 0.001; ηP 2 = 0.156) while the cleaning protocol did not affect the results (p > 0.766)
Summary
Clinicians have a choice of many different restoration materials depending on the indication. Tooth-colored materials have become increasingly popular due to their esthetic properties. The group of esthetic materials mainly includes ceramics and polymers. Due to the ever-progressing computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies, as well as the innovative material development in terms of esthetics and mechanical properties, these materials are increasingly used for monolithic restorations [1]. The fabrication of a monolithic restoration is quick and easier compared to a veneered fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). These restorations are often luted using resin composite cements (RCC). This cementation type is more complex than cementing with conventional cements, e.g., glass ionomer cement.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
