Effect of surface finish and resin cement on the bond strength to CAD-CAM ceramics for interim resin-bonded prostheses.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Resin-bonded prostheses, including interim resin-bonded prostheses, are effective in preserving tooth structure compared with other types of fixed dental prostheses for the replacement of missing teeth. However, loss of retention remains a notable concern with these types of prostheses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of glass-ceramic type, resin type, and surface finish on the shear bond strength (SBS) to the CAD-CAM ceramics used to fabricate interim resin-bonded prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty 10×2-mm glass-ceramic disks were fabricated by using a diamond saw (IsoMet 1000), 40 from feldspathic porcelain blocks (Vita Mark II) and 40 from lithium disilicate blocks (IPS e.max CAD). Half of the specimens in each group were left with a dull or matte surface finish after cutting, while the other half were glazed with an add-on glaze (VitaAkzento Plus Glaze Spray and IPS e.max CAD Glaze Spray, respectively). The disks were mounted in acrylic resin, and each group was subdivided into 2, with 1 receiving a photopolymerized resin cement (RelyX Veneer) and the other receiving a flowable composite resin (Filtek Supreme Ultimate Flow) to form 2.38×2-mm cylinders. SBS was determined using a universal testing machine (Instron 4411) in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 29022:2013 standard, and failure modes were analyzed by using a stereomicroscope with ×40 magnification. The data were analyzed with a 3-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc analysis. The chi-squared test was used to analyze the failure mode (α=.05 for all tests).

RESULTS

Ceramic type, resin type, and surface finish significantly impacted SBS (P<.001, P=.003, P<.001, respectively). Lithium disilicate showed higher SBS than feldspathic porcelain, and flowable composite resin exhibited higher SBS than resin cement. Glazed surfaces displayed lower SBS compared with the dull or matte surfaces. The combinations among the 3 materials also impacted SBS (P=.03). In addition, the combinations between ceramic type and surface finish affected SBS (P<.001), regardless of resin cement type. No other combinations affected the SBS (P>.05). The mode of failure was different among the groups (P<.001). In comparison with all other groups, cohesive failures were most prevalent in feldspathic porcelain with a dull or matte surface finish, regardless of the resin type used.

CONCLUSIONS

The SBS to glass-ceramics was influenced by ceramic material, resin cement type, and surface finish. Flowable composite resin showed higher SBS than resin cement. A dull or matte surface finish exhibited greater bond strength than a glazed surface. Lithium disilicate had higher SBS than feldspathic porcelain.