SUMMARY
Objectives:
The aim of this investigation was to test the tensile bond strength (TBS) between different computer-aided-design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramics after conditioning using different universal adhesive systems and resin composite cement.
Methods and Materials:
Substrates of four CAD/CAM ceramics—1) VITABLOCS Mark II, 2) Initial LRF, 3) Celtra Duo, and 4) IPS e.max CAD (N=648, n=162)—were fabricated. VITABLOCS Mark II and Initial LRF were etched using 9% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, Celtra Duo for 30 seconds, and IPS e.max CAD for 20 seconds. Substrates for conditioning using Monobond Etch & Prime were untreated. The following adhesive systems were used: All-Bond Universal (ABU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB), G-Multi Primer (GMP), iBond Universal (IBU), Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP), Monobond Plus (MBP), One Coat 7 Universal (OCU), Prime&Bond Active (PBA), and Scotchbond Universal (SBU). Conditioned substrates were bonded using a resin composite cement (Variolink Esthetic DC), thermal cycled (20,000×, 5°C/55°C), and TBS was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using univariate analysis with partial eta-squared, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman-Rho tests (α=0.05).
Results:
ABU, MEP, and MBP obtained the significantly highest TBS, while CUB, IBU, and OCO resulted in the lowest, regardless of the CAD/CAM ceramic. SBU showed varying TBS results depending on the CAD/CAM ceramic used. ABU, MEP, and MBP showed no impact of CAD/CAM ceramic on TBS values. ABU, GMP, MEP, and MBP showed predominantly cohesive failure types in luting composite, while CUB and OCU demonstrated adhesive failure types.
Microtensile Bond Strength Between Self-Adhesive Resin Cements and Resin Based Ceramic CAD/CAM Block
