• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.211-217
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. To evaluate the effect of prolonged sandblasting on the bond durability of dual-cure adhesive resin cement to computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restoratives. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Nano-ceramic LAVA Ultimate and hybrid-ceramic VITA Enamic CAD/CAM blocks were used for this study. Each CAD/CAM block was sectioned into slabs of 4-mm thickness for the microtensile test (${\mu}TBS$) test and 2-mm thickness for the surface roughness test. Three groups were created according to the sandblasting protocols; group 1: specimens were sandblasted for 15 seconds, group 2: specimens were sandblasted for 30 seconds, and group 3: specimens were sandblasted for 60 seconds. After sandblasting, all specimens were luted using RelyX Ultimate Clicker. Half the specimens were subjected to ${\mu}TBS$ tests at 24 hours, and the other half were subjected to tests after 5000 thermocycles. Additionally, a total of 96 CAD/CAM block sections were prepared for surface roughness tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluations. The Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, and Dunn's post hoc test were used to compare continuous variables among the groups. RESULTS. At baseline, group 1, group 2, and group 3 exhibited statistically similar ${\mu}TBS$ results for LAVA. However, group 3 had significantly lower ${\mu}TBS$ values than groups 1 and 2 for VITA. After 5000 thermocycles, ${\mu}TBS$ values significantly decreased for each block (P<.05). CONCLUSION. It is important to perform controlled sandblasting because it may affect bond strength results. Sixty seconds of sandblasting disturbs the initial ${\mu}TBS$ values and the stability of adhesion of CAD/CAM restoratives to dual-cure adhesive resin cement for VITA Enamic.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.120-127
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. To determine wear amount of single molar crowns, made from four different restoratives, and opposing natural teeth through computerized fabrication techniques using 3D image alignment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 24 single crowns (N = 24 patients, age range: 18 - 50) were made from lithium disilicate (IPS E-max CAD), lithium silicate and zirconia based (Vita Suprinity CAD), resin matrix ceramic material (Cerasmart, GC), and dual matrix (Vita Enamic CAD) blocks. After digital impressions (Cerec 3D Bluecam, DentsplySirona), the crowns were designed and manufactured (Cerec 3, DentsplySirona). A dualcuring resin cement was used for cementation (Variolink Esthetic DC, Ivoclar). Then, measurement and recording of crowns and the opposing enamel surfaces with the intraoral scanner were made as well as at the third and sixth month follow-ups. All measurements were superimposed with a software (David-Laserscanner, V3.10.4). Volume loss due to wear was calculated from baseline to follow-up periods with Siemens Unigraphics NX 10 software. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Repeated Measures for ANOVA (SPSS 21) at = .05 significance level. RESULTS. After 6 months, insignificant differences of the glass matrix and resin matrix materials for restoration/enamel wear were observed (P>.05). While there were no significant differences between the glass matrix groups (P>.05), significant differences between the resin matrix group materials (P<.05) were obtained. Although Cerasmart and Enamic were both resin matrix based, they exhibited different wear characteristics. CONCLUSION. Glass matrix materials showed less wear both on their own and opposing enamel surfaces than resin matrix ceramic materials.