Sturzenegger Samuel, Srisanoi Kittipit, Stillhart Angela, Srinivasan Murali
Clinic of General-, Special Care- and Geriatric Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 11 Plattenstrasse, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
Clinic of General-, Special Care- and Geriatric Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 11 Plattenstrasse, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland; Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
J Dent. 2025 Sep;160:105873. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105873. Epub 2025 Jun 1.
This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the tensile bond strength of a 3D-printed denture base resin relined with conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) reline resin, following various surface treatment protocols including mechanical abrasion, monomer application, and selected commercially available adhesive systems.
Ninety resin specimens were 3D printed using DentaBase resin (Asiga) and divided into nine groups: GrN: control (intact) and relined groups (Gr1-Gr8) subjected to different surface treatments including, Gr1: no surface treatment, Gr2: monomer application, Gr3: sandblasting, Gr4: sandblasting + monomer application, Gr5: sandblasting + Qu-resin, Gr6: sandblasting + Visiolink, Gr7: Sandblasting + Monobond Plus + Heliobond, Gr8: sandblasting + Lukafix bonder. Specimens underwent tensile testing at 1 mm/min and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was calculated. Fracture patterns were examined microscopically. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Dunn's post hoc test (α = 0.05).
The highest median of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was observed in GrN (control, 25.9 MPa), followed by Gr4 (19.7 MPa), Gr5 (18.4 MPa), and Gr6 (17.9 MPa). Gr1 (no treatment) had the lowest median UTS (11.5 MPa). Statistically significant differences were observed between GrN and Gr1 (p < 0.001), GrN and Gr2 (p = 0.002), and GrN and Gr8 (p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed among Gr3, Gr4, Gr7, and Gr6 (p > 0.05). All relined groups exhibited adhesive failures at the denture base-reline interface.
Surface treatments improved tensile bond strength in relined 3D-printed specimens, but none restored it to control levels. Sandblasting with monomer application or with selected bonding agents produced higher bond strengths than no treatment or monomer alone.
Simple, accessible surface treatments such as sandblasting along with monomer application on the resin surfaces can significantly enhance bond strength when relining 3D-printed dentures and may be preferable over complex bonding systems.
本体外研究旨在评估采用传统聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）重衬树脂对3D打印义齿基托树脂进行重衬后的拉伸粘结强度，采用了多种表面处理方案，包括机械磨损、单体涂抹以及选用的市售粘结系统。
使用DentaBase树脂（Asiga）3D打印90个树脂样本，并分为九组：GrN：对照组（完整）和重衬组（Gr1 - Gr8），重衬组接受不同的表面处理，包括，Gr1：未进行表面处理，Gr2：涂抹单体，Gr3：喷砂处理，Gr4：喷砂处理 + 涂抹单体，Gr5：喷砂处理 + Qu - 树脂，Gr6：喷砂处理 + Visiolink，Gr7：喷砂处理 + Monobond Plus + Heliobond，Gr8：喷砂处理 + Lukafix粘结剂。样本以1毫米/分钟的速度进行拉伸测试，并计算极限拉伸强度（UTS）。通过显微镜检查断裂模式。使用Kruskal - Wallis方差分析和Dunn事后检验（α = 0.05）对数据进行分析。
在GrN组（对照组，25.9兆帕）中观察到极限拉伸强度（UTS）的最高中位数，其次是Gr4组（19.7兆帕）、Gr5组（18.4兆帕）和Gr6组（17.9兆帕）。Gr1组（未处理）的UTS中位数最低（11.5兆帕）。在GrN组和Gr1组之间（p < 0.001）、GrN组和Gr2组之间（p = 0.002）以及GrN组和Gr8组之间（p = 0.004）观察到统计学上的显著差异。在Gr3、Gr4、Gr7和Gr6组之间未观察到显著差异（p > 0.05）。所有重衬组在义齿基托 - 重衬界面均表现出粘结失败。
表面处理提高了重衬后的3D打印样本的拉伸粘结强度，但没有一种处理能将其恢复到对照组水平。喷砂处理并涂抹单体或使用选定的粘结剂比不处理或仅涂抹单体产生更高的粘结强度。
简单易行的表面处理，如在树脂表面进行喷砂处理并涂抹单体，在对3D打印义齿进行重衬时可显著提高粘结强度，可能比复杂的粘结系统更可取。
Zotero 插件