Bonding to CAD-CAM Composites: An Interfacial Fracture Toughness Approach

[en] The objective of this study was to evaluate the interfacial fracture toughness (IFT) of composite cement with dispersed filler (DF) versus polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) composite blocks after 2 different surface pretreatments using the notchless triangular prism (NTP) test. Two DFs (Cerasmart [CRT] and Lava Ultimate [LVA]), 2 PICNs (Enamic [ENA] and experimental PICN [EXP]), and e.max CAD lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (EMX, control) prism samples were bonded to their counterparts with Variolink Esthetic DC composite cement after either hydrofluoric acid etching (HF) or gritblasting (GR). Both procedures were followed by silanization. All samples (n = 30 per group) were thermocycled (10,000 cycles) and tested for their IFT in a water bath at 36°C. Moreover, representative samples from each group were subjected to a developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr) measurement by profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) characterization. EXP-HF gave the highest IFT (1.85 ± 0.39 MPa·m1/2), followed by EMX-HF and ENA-HF, while CRT-HF gave the lowest (0.15 ± 0.22 MPa·m1/2). PICNs gave significantly better results with HF, and DF showed better results with GR. A 2-way analysis of variance indicated that there were significantly higher IFT and Sdr for PICNs than for DF. A positive correlation (r2 = 0.872) was found between IFT and Sdr. SEM characterization showed the specific microstructure of the surface of etched PICNs, indicating the presence of a retentive polymerbased honeycomb structure. Etching of the typical double-network microstructure of PICNs causes an important increase in the Sdr and IFT, while DF should be gritblasted. DF exhibited significantly lower Sdr and IFT values than PICNs. The present results show the important influence of the material class and surface texture, and consequently the micromechanical bond, on the adhesive interface performance of CAD-CAM composites

Research center :

d‐BRU - Dental Biomaterials Research Unit - ULiège [BE]

Disciplines :

Dentistry & oral medicine

Author, co-author :

Eldafrawy, Maher ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Doct. sc. dent. (paysage)

Ebroin, Marie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Labo de biologie des tumeurs et du développement

Gailly, Patrick ; Université de Liège - ULiège > CSL (Centre Spatial de Liège)

Nguyen, Jean-Francois

Sadoun, Michael

Mainjot, Amélie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires

Language :

English

Title :

Bonding to CAD-CAM Composites: An Interfacial Fracture Toughness Approach

Publication date :

2018

Journal title :

Journal of Dental Research

ISSN :

0022-0345

eISSN :

1544-0591

Publisher :

International & American Associations for Dental Research, Alexandria, United States - Virginia

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 22 September 2017

Statistics

Number of views

212 (30 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

5 (2 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Albero A, Pascual A, Camps I, Grau-Benitez M. 2015. Comparative characterization of a novel CAD-CAM polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network. J Clin Exp Dent. 7(4):e495–e500.
Armstrong S, Breschi L, Ozcan M, Pfefferkorn F, Ferrari M, Van Meerbeek B. 2017. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent Mater. 33(2):133–143.
Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. 2010. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater. 26(2):e50–e62.
Armstrong SR, Boyer DB, Keller JC, Park JB. 1998. Effect of hybrid layer on fracture toughness of adhesively bonded dentin-resin composite joint. Dent Mater. 14(2):91–98.
Campos F, Almeida CS, Rippe MP, de Melo RM, Valandro LF, Bottino MA. 2016. Resin bonding to a hybrid ceramic: effects of surface treatments and aging. Oper Dent. 41(2):171–178.
Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Egilmez F, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. 2016. Micro-shear bond strength of different resin cements to ceramic/glass-polymer CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthodontic Res. 60(4):265–273.
Coldea A, Fischer J, Swain MV, Thiel N. 2015. Damage tolerance of indirect restorative materials (including PICN) after simulated bur adjustments. Dent Mater. 31(6):684–694.
Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. 2013. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater. 29(4):419–426.
De Munck J, Luehrs AK, Poitevin A, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B. 2013. Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces. Dent Mater. 29(6):635–644.
Elsaka SE. 2014. Bond strength of novel CAD/CAM restorative materials to self-adhesive resin cement: the effect of surface treatments. J Adhes Dent. 16(6):531–540.
Far C, Ruse ND. 2003. Effect of bleaching on fracture toughness of composite-dentin bonds. J Adhes Dent. 5(3):175–182.
Frankenberger R, Hartmann VE, Krech M, Kramer N, Reich S, Braun A, Roggendorf M. 2015. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent. 18(1):9–20.
Lebon N, Tapie L, Vennat E, Mawussi B. 2015. Influence of CAD/CAM tool and material on tool wear and roughness of dental prostheses after milling. J Prosthet Dent. 114(2):236–247.
Lise DP, Van Ende A, De Munck J, Vieira L, Baratieri LN, Van Meerbeek B. 2017. Microtensile bond strength of composite cement to novel CAD/CAM materials as a function of surface treatment and aging. Oper Dent. 42(1):73–81.
Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. 2016. From artisanal to CAD-CAM blocks: state of the art of indirect composites. J Dent Res. 95(5):487–495.
Nguyen JF, Ruse D, Phan AC, Sadoun MJ. 2014. High-temperature-pressure polymerized resin-infiltrated ceramic networks. J Dent Res. 93(1):62–67.
Peumans M, Valjakova EB, De Munck J, Mishevska CB, Van Meerbeek B. 2016. Bonding effectiveness of luting composites to different cad/cam materials. J Adhes Dent. 18(4):289–302.
Phan AC, Behin P, Stoclet G, Dorin Ruse N, Nguyen JF, Sadoun M. 2015. Optimum pressure for the high-pressure polymerization of urethane dimethacrylate. Dent Mater. 31(4):406–412.
Pongprueksa P, De Munck J, Karunratanakul K, Barreto BC, Van Ende A, Senawongse P, Van Meerbeek B. 2016. Dentin bonding testing using a mini-interfacial fracture toughness approach. J Dent Res. 95(3):327–333.
Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ. 2014. Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res. 93(12):1232–1234.
Ruse ND, Troczynski T, MacEntee MI, Feduik D. 1996. Novel fracture toughness test using a notchless triangular prism (NTP) specimen. J Biomed Mater Res. 31(4):457–463.
Sadoun M, inventor. 2011. Composite ceramic block. US patent 8,507,578 B2. Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week33/OG/html/1393-2/US08507578-20130813.html
Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. 2010. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review. Dent Mater. 26(2):e78–e93.
Schwenter J, Schmidli F, Weiger R, Fischer J. 2016. Adhesive bonding to polymer infiltrated ceramic. Dent Mater J. 35(5):796–802.
Soderholm KJ. 2010. Review of the fracture toughness approach. Dent Mater. 26(2):e63–e77.
Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB. 2014. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 26(6):382–393.
Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF. 2014. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater. 30(7):e147–e162.
Toparli M, Aksoy T. 1998. Fracture toughness determination of composite resin and dentin/composite resin adhesive interfaces by laboratory testing and finite element models. Dent Mater. 14(4):287–293.
Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A, De Munck J. 2010. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater. 26(2):e100–e121.