Zaghloul Hanaa, Elkassas Dina Wafik, Haridy Mohamed Fouad
Department of Fixed Prosthodontic, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt.
Department of Operative Dentistry, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt.
Eur J Dent. 2014 Jan;8(1):44-52. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.126240.
To investigate the repair potential of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) ceramic and composite blocks using a silane-containing bonding agent with different repair protocols.
Twenty-four discs were constructed from CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. The discs were divided into six groups according to surface pre-treatment employed; GI: Diamond stone roughening (SR), GII: SR+ silanization (SR+S), GIII: Hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), GIV: HF+ silanization (HF+S), GV: Silica coating (SC), GVI: SC+ silanization (SC+S). Silane-containing bonding agent (Single Bond Universal adhesive, 3M ESPE) was applied to the pre-treated discs. Prior to light curing, irises were cut from tygon tubes (internal diameter = 0.8 mm and height = 0.5 mm) and mounted on each treated surface. Nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350(XT), 3M ESPE) was packed into the cylinder lumen and light-cured (n = 10). The specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength testing (μ-SBS) using universal testing machine. Failure modes of the fractured specimens were analyzed using field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Eight representative discs were prepared to analyze the effect of surface treatments on surface topography using FESEM. μ-SBS results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukeys post-hoc test.
Three-way ANOVA results showed that the materials, surface pre-treatment protocols, and silanization step had a statistically significant effect on the mean μ-SBS values at P ≤ 0.001. For ceramic discs, the groups were ranked; GIV (24.45 ± 7.35)> GVI ((20.18 ± 2.84)> GV (7.14 ± 14)= GII (6.72 ± 1.91)=GI (6.34 ± 2.21)=GIII (5.72 ± 2.18). For composite discs, groups were ranked; GI (24.98 ± 7.69)=GVI (24.84 ± 7.00) >GII (15.85 ± 5.29) =GV (14.65 ± 4.5)= GIV (14.24 ± 2.95)≥ GIII ((9.37 ± 2.78).
The additional silanization step cannot be omitted if the repair protocol comprises of either hydrofluoric acid etching or silica coating for both CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. However, this step can be suppressed by using silane-containing adhesive with diamond stone roughened repair protocol.
使用含硅烷的粘结剂及不同修复方案,研究计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)陶瓷块和复合树脂块的修复潜力。
用CAD/CAM陶瓷块和复合树脂块制作24个圆盘。根据表面预处理方法将圆盘分为六组;GI组:金刚石磨石粗化(SR),GII组:SR + 硅烷化(SR + S),GIII组:氢氟酸蚀刻(HF),GIV组:HF + 硅烷化(HF + S),GV组:二氧化硅涂层(SC),GVI组:SC + 硅烷化(SC + S)。将含硅烷的粘结剂(单键通用粘结剂,3M ESPE)应用于预处理后的圆盘。在光固化前,从泰根管(内径 = 0.8 mm,高度 = 0.5 mm)上切下虹膜并安装在每个处理过的表面上。将纳米填充树脂复合材料(Filtek Z350(XT),3M ESPE)填充到圆柱腔内并进行光固化(n = 10)。使用万能试验机对标本进行微剪切粘结强度测试(μ-SBS)。使用场发射扫描电子显微镜(FESEM)分析断裂标本的失效模式。制备八个代表性圆盘,用FESEM分析表面处理对表面形貌的影响。使用方差分析和Tukey事后检验分析μ-SBS结果。
三因素方差分析结果表明,材料、表面预处理方案和硅烷化步骤对平均μ-SBS值有统计学显著影响,P≤0.001。对于陶瓷圆盘,各组排序为;GIV组(24.45±7.35)> GVI组((20.18±2.84)> GV组(7.14±14)= GII组(6.72±1.91)=GI组(6.34±2.21)=GIII组(5.72±2.18)。对于复合树脂圆盘,各组排序为;GI组(24.98±7.69)=GVI组(24.84±7.00)>GII组(15.85±5.29) =GV组(14.65±4.5)= GIV组(14.24±2.95)≥ GIII组((9.37±2.78)。
对于CAD/CAM美学修复材料,如果修复方案包括氢氟酸蚀刻或二氧化硅涂层,则不能省略额外的硅烷化步骤。然而,通过使用含硅烷的粘结剂和金刚石磨石粗化修复方案,可以省略这一步骤。