Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The impact of different surface treatments on repair bond strength of conventionally, subtractive-, and additive-manufactured denture bases.
Sahin, Zeynep; Ozer, Nazire Esra; Akan, Tamer; Kilicarslan, Mehmet Ali; Karaagaclioglu, Lale.
Afiliação
  • Sahin Z; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Lokman Hekim University, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Ozer NE; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Lokman Hekim University, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Akan T; Department of Physics, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
  • Kilicarslan MA; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Yenimahalle, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Karaagaclioglu L; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Lokman Hekim University, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
J Esthet Restor Dent ; 36(9): 1337-1347, 2024 Sep.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38747067
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to examine the shear bond strength (SBS) of repair material to conventionally, subtractive-, and additive-manufactured denture bases after different surface treatments. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Disk-shaped test specimens (N = 300) were prepared from denture base materials produced by one conventional (Procryla), one subtractive (Yamahachi), and one additive (Curo Denture) method. The test specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) and exposed to a variety of surface treatments-Group A no surface treatment; Group B grinding with silicon carbide paper; Group C sandblasting; Group D erbium yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser; and Group E plasma. Repair was performed with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Meliodent). Surface roughness analyses were performed with a profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each subgroup. SBS was evaluated on a universal testing machine. Failure types were observed under a stereomicroscope.

RESULTS:

Surface roughness values were significantly higher in all test materials in Group D than in the other groups (p < 0.001). For conventional resin, the SBS values were higher in Group C than in Groups A, D, and E (p < 0.001). For CAD/CAM material, Groups B and C had significantly greater SBS increases compared with Group E (p < 0.001). For 3D material, Group D showed higher SBS than all groups except Group C (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

For SBS, sandblasting was most effective in the conventional group, whereas laser treatment was the most effective in the additive-manufactured group. For the subtractive group, surface treatments other than plasma exhibited similar SBS. CLINICAL

SIGNIFICANCE:

In repairing fractured prostheses, any degree of roughening suitable for the material content may provide an SBS benefit.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Propriedades de Superfície / Bases de Dentadura Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Propriedades de Superfície / Bases de Dentadura Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article