RESUMEN
The present investigation tested the effect of cleaning methods and adhesives on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of a resin-based composite luted to a temporary 3D printed resin. Substrates (n= 360) were printed using a Rapidshape D20II and cleaned with a butyldiglycol-based solution, isopropanol, or by centrifugation. Specimens were air-abraded with Al2O3 (mean particle size 50 µm) at 0.1 MPa followed by pretreatment (n = 30/subgroup) with: (1) Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CCP); (2) Clearfil Universal Bond (CUB); (3) Scotchbond Universal Plus (SUP) or 4. Visio.link (VL) and luted to PanaviaV5. TBS (n = 15/subgroup) was measured initially (24 h at 37 °C water) or after thermal cycling (10,000×, 5/55 °C). The degree of conversion (DC) for each cleaning method was determined prior and after air-abrasion. Univariate ANOVA followed by post-hoc Scheffé test was computed (p < 0.05). Using Ciba-Geigy tables and chi-square, failure types were analyzed. The DC values were >85% after all cleaning methods, with centrifugation showing the lowest. CCP pretreatment exhibited the lowest TBS values, with predominantly adhesive failures. The combination of CCP and centrifugation increased the TBS values (p < 0.001) compared to the chemical cleaning. CUB, SUP, and VL, regardless of cleaning, can increase the bond strength between the 3D printed resin and the conventional luting resin.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The influence of different cleaning methods, air-abrasion parameters, and aging on shear bond strength (SBS) and tensile bond strength (TBS) of 3D resin luted to composite resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine hundred resin substrates were 3D printed (D20II, Rapid Shape) and cleaned with either isopropanol (ISO), butyldiglycol-based solution (BUT), or centrifugation (CEN). After 24-h storage in 37 °C water, specimens were air-abraded (mean particle size 50 µm; n = 60) with either alumina at 0.1 MPa (AL0.1) or 0.4 MPa (AL0.4) and glass pearls at 0.1 MPa (GP0.1) and 0.4 MPa (GP0.4) or conditioned with visio.link (control) and luted with PanaviaV5. Initially (24 h, 37 °C water storage) or after aging (10,000 thermal cycles), SBS and TBS were measured, and fracture types were examined. Surface free energy (SFE) and roughness (Ra) were determined after air-abrasion. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, and partial eta-squared were computed. RESULTS: SBS measurements presented higher values than TBS (p < 0.001-0.033). Within the pretreatment groups, CEN showed the highest SBS and TBS values compared to cleaning with ISO or BUT (p < 0.001-0.040). Pretreatment with GP0.1 displayed the lowest bond strength values (p < 0.001-0.049), and mostly adhesive fractures occurred. The highest Ra values (p < 0.001) were observed for AL0.4 pretreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with AL0.4 and the control group mainly presented the highest bond strength values. Thermocycling had a positive effect on the bond strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to this study, 3D-printed restorations should be pretreated with AL0.4 or with visio.link before adhesive luting, regardless of their cleaning.
