Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Altınbaş University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023 Dec;35(8):1322-1331. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13131. Epub 2023 Sep 7.
To specify the effects of self-etching ceramic primer, Monobond Etch and Prime (MEP), and universal adhesive (UA) on repair bond strength between CAD/CAM blocks and resin composite.
Vita Mark II (VM), IPS e.max CAD (EMAX), Shofu Block HC (SHC), and Tetric CAD (TET) blocks were sliced and thermocycled. They were divided into four groups according to surface treatments (n = 24): control, sandblasting (AL), hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), and MEP application. SEM analysis assessed surface topography. Subdivided, specimens followed distinct adhesive protocols (n = 12): control (silane + adhesive [SA] or adhesive [A] only for MEP group) and UA. Microshear bond strength (μSBS) was measured following resin composite repair. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
The μSBS of CAD/CAM blocks was significantly influenced by surface treatment type and adhesive protocol. The highest μSBS values for each block, considering surface treatment + adhesive protocol, were VM, HF + SA, or HF + UA; EMAX, MEP + A; and SHC and TET, AL + SA, or AL + UA.
Except for EMAX, it was not the adhesive protocol that made the significant difference in bond strength for each CAD/CAM block, but the surface treatment. MEP + UA application on glass ceramics lowered μSBS values significantly, so it is not recommended in clinical conditions.
Repair is an essential therapeutic option, particularly in esthetic restorations, to swiftly repair the impaired esthetics caused by fracture. Repair protocol is dependent on the restorative material, and to have a reliable repair bond strength, the following surface treatment and adhesive protocol combinations are recommended for each CAD/CAM block: VM, HF + SA, or HF + UA; EMAX, MEP + A; and SHC and TET, AL + SA, or AL + UA.
明确自酸蚀陶瓷底涂剂 Monobond Etch and Prime（MEP）和通用粘结剂（UA）对 CAD/CAM 修复体与树脂复合材料之间修复粘结强度的影响。
Vita Mark II（VM）、IPS e.max CAD（EMAX）、Shofu Block HC（SHC）和 Tetric CAD（TET）试件均切割后热循环处理，根据表面处理方式（n=24）分为 4 组：对照组、喷砂（AL）组、氢氟酸蚀刻（HF）组和 MEP 组。采用扫描电镜分析表面形貌。细分后，各组试件按不同粘结剂方案（n=12）处理：对照组（硅烷偶联剂+粘结剂[SA]或仅 MEP 组用粘结剂[A]）和 UA 组。修复后测量微拉伸粘结强度（μSBS）。采用双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验（p<0.05）对数据进行分析。
CAD/CAM 修复体的 μSBS 明显受表面处理方式和粘结剂方案的影响。每种 CAD/CAM 块的表面处理+粘结剂方案中，VM 的最高 μSBS 值为 HF+SA 或 HF+UA；EMAX 的最高 μSBS 值为 MEP+A；SHC 和 TET 的最高 μSBS 值为 AL+SA 或 AL+UA。
除 EMAX 外，每种 CAD/CAM 块的粘结强度差异并非由粘结剂方案决定，而是由表面处理方式决定。在玻璃陶瓷上应用 MEP+UA 显著降低 μSBS 值，因此不建议在临床情况下使用。
修复是一种重要的治疗选择，特别是在美学修复中，可迅速修复因断裂导致的美学损伤。修复方案取决于修复材料，为获得可靠的修复粘结强度，建议对每种 CAD/CAM 块采用以下表面处理和粘结剂方案组合：VM 为 HF+SA 或 HF+UA；EMAX 为 MEP+A；SHC 和 TET 为 AL+SA 或 AL+UA。
