Bond strength of additively manufactured composite resins to dentin and titanium when bonded with dual-polymerizing resin cements.

ABSTRACT

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Additively manufactured composite resins for definitive restorations have been recently introduced. The bond strength between these composite resins and different substrates has not been extensively studied. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the shear bond strength (SBS) between additively manufactured composite resins and dentin and titanium substrates and compare those with the SBS between subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic and the same substrates (dentin and titanium), when different dual-polymerizing resin cements were used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty cylinder-shaped specimens (Ø5×5 mm) were prepared from 3 materials recommended for definitive restorations an additively manufactured composite resin (Crowntec [CT]); an additively manufactured hybrid composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]); and a subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Enamic [EN]) (n=60). Specimens were randomly divided into six subgroups to be cemented to the two substrates (dentin and titanium; n=30) with 1 of 3 resin cements (RelyX Universal, Panavia V5, and Variolink Esthetic DC) (n=10). The restoration surface to be bonded was treated according to the respective manufacturer's recommendations. Dentin surfaces were treated according to the resin cement (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive for RelyX Universal, Panavia V5 Tooth Primer for Panavia V5, and Adhese Universal for Variolink Esthetic DC), while titanium surfaces were airborne-particle abraded, and only the specimens paired with Panavia V5 were treated with a ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus). SBS was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a microscope at ×12 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05). RESULTS: When SBS to dentin was considered, only restorative material, as a main factor, had a significant effect (P<.001); EN had the highest SBS (P<.001), while the difference in SBS values of CT and VS was not significant (P=.145). As for SBS to titanium, the factors restorative material and resin cement and their interaction had a significant effect (P<.001). Within each resin cement, EN had the highest SBS to titanium (P<.001), and within each restorative material, Variolink resulted in the lowest SBS (P≤.010). Overall, EN and RelyX were associated with the highest SBS to titanium (P≤.013). Mixed failures were predominant in most groups. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the substrate or the resin cement used, the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic had higher shear bond strength than the additively manufactured composite resins. The SBS of the additively manufactured composite resins, whether bonded to dentin or titanium, were not significantly different from each other. Regardless of the restorative material, Variolink DC resulted in the lowest SBS for titanium surfaces.