Kübra CANTÜRK, Buket KARALAR, Ömer SAĞSÖZ, Nilgün SEVEN, Nurdan POLAT SAĞSÖZ, Yusuf ZİYA BAYINDIR

FARKLI ÜNİVERSAL BAĞLAYICI AJANLARIN CAD/CAM SERAMİKLERİN KOMPOZİT REZİN İLE TAMİRİ SONRASI BAĞLANMA KUVVETİNE ETKİSİ

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada iki farklı CAD/CAM seramiğe bir primer ve iki farklı bağlayıcı ajan uygulanarak kompozit rezinle tamir sonrası bağlanma kuvvetinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı.YÖNTEM: CAD/CAM seramik materyallerden (VITA Suprinity ve IPS e.max CAD) 30’ar adet örnek hazırlandı. Örnekleri elde etmek için yavaş hızlı testere (ISOMET 1000) kullanılarak seramik bloklardan 1 mm kalınlığında kesitler alındı. Daha sonra seramikler soğuk akriliğe sabitlenerek yüzeylerine 1dk boyunca %10’luk hidroflorik asit uygulandı. Primer uygulamasına göre seramikler iki gruba ayrıldı: BISCO Z-Prime-ZP ve primer kullanılmayan kontrol grubu-K. Uygulanan bağlayıcı ajanlara göre de seramikler 2 alt gruba daha ayrıldı: 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb, KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond Quick -Qb (n=5). 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb seramiklere 20 sn boyunca ovalama hareketi ile uygulanıp 5 sn hava ile seyreltildi ve LED ışık cihazı ile 10 sn polimerize edildi. KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-Qb ise seramiklere 10 sn boyunca ovalama hareketi ile uygulanıp 5 sn hava ile seyreltildi ve LED ışık cihazı ile 10 sn polimerize edildi. Bir kompozit rezin (VOCO Xtra-fil) 4 mm çapında ve 4 mm yüksekliğinde plastik kalıplar kullanılarak bir LED ışık cihazı ile seramik yüzeylerde polimerize edildi. Elde edilen örnekler 24 saat 37°C saf suda bekletildi. Bağlanma kuvvetleri bir universal test cihazı kullanılarak makaslama testi ile ölçüldü. Kaydedilen değerler tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) kullanılarak analiz edildi (p<0.05). Kırılma tipleri bir stereo mikroskop yardımıyla tespit edildi.BULGULAR: En yüksek bağlanma dayanımı Suprinity+K+Qb (20.15 MPa) grubunda, en düşük bağlanma dayanımı e.max CAD+ZP+Qb (10.85 MPa) grubunda bulundu. Primer ve bağlayıcı ajanlar arasında herhangi bir fark bulunmazken (p>0.05), seramikler arasında önemli derecede fark bulundu (p<0.05). e.max CAD örneklerin bağlanma değerleri Suprinity ye göre anlamlı derecede daha düşük bulundu (p<0.05).SONUÇ: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde; üniversal bağlayıcı ajanların tek başına kullanıldığı kontrol grubunun, BISCO Z-Prime Plus kullanılan gruplara benzer bağlanma sonuçları gösterdiği ve iki uygulamanın da klinik olarak yeterli bağlanma dayanımı sağladıkları belirlenmiştir. Üniversal bağlayıcı ajanlar, CAD/CAM seramiklerin kompozit rezin ile tamirinde klinik olarak tek başlarına kullanılabilir.Anahtar Kelimeler: Bağlanma Kuvveti, Kompozit, Üniversal Bond, SeramikTHE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT UNIVERSAL BONDING AGENTS ON THE BOND STRENGTH OF CAD/CAM CERAMICS REPAIRED WITH COMPOSITE RESIN AIM: In this study, a primer and two bonding agents were used on two different CAD / CAM ceramics to evaluate the bond strength after repairing with composite resin.METHODS: 30 samples were prepared from CAD/CAM ceramic materials (VITA Suprinity and IPS e.max CAD). 1 mm thick sections were cut from the ceramic blocks using a low speed diamond saw (ISOMET 1000) to obtain the samples. Then the ceramics were fixed to with cold cured acrylic and the surfaces were treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 1 min. According to the primer application, ceramics were divided into two groups: BISCO Z-Prime-ZP and control group without primer-K. According to the bonding agents applied, ceramics were further divided into 2 subgroups: 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb and KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-Qb (n = 5). 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal-Sb was applied to ceramics with a scrubbing for 20 seconds and thinned with air for 5 seconds and polymerized with LED device for 10 seconds. KURARAY Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-Qb was applied to ceramics with a scrubbing for 10 seconds and thinned with air for 5 seconds and polymerized with LED device for 10 seconds. A composite resin (VOCO Xtra-fil) was polymerized on ceramic surfaces with a LED device using 4 mm diameter and 4 mm height plastic molds. The obtained samples were stored for 24 hours at 37 ° C in distilled water. Bond strength values were measured by a shear bond test using a universal tester. The recorded values were analyzed using Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). (p<0.05) The fracture types were detected using a stereo microscope.RESULTS: The highest bond strength was found in the group Suprinity + K + Qb (20.15 MPa), with the lowest bond strength in the group of e.max CAD + ZP + Qb (10.85 MPa). There was no significant difference between the primer groups and bonding agent groups (p>0.05), but there was a significant difference between the ceramics (p<0.05). The bond strength values of e.max CAD samples were significantly lower than Suprinity samples. (p<0.05)CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study; The control group using the universal bonding agents were shown to exhibit similar bonding results to those group used BISCO Z-Prime Plus and that both applications provided clinically sufficient bond strength. Universal bonding agents can be used alone in the clinical repair of CAD/CAM ceramics with composite resin.Keywords: Bond Strength, Ceramics, Composite, Universal Bond

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Bağlanma Kuvveti, Kompozit, Üniversal Bond

PDF

___

1. Yüce ŞM TA. Bilgisayar destekli tasarım-bilgisayar destekli üretim ve presleme sistemleriyle üretilen porselen laminat venerlerin kenar ve internal uyumlarının karşılaştırılması: in-vitro çalışma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 2016.
2. Wang YG, Xing YX, Sun YC, Zhao YJ, Lu PJ, Wang Y. [Preliminary evaluation of clinical effect of computer aided design and computer aided manufacture zirconia crown]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2013, 48: 355-358.
3. Aboushelib MN. Fatigue and fracture resistance of zirconia crowns prepared with different finish line designs. J Prosthodont, 2012, 21: 22-27.
4. Hickel R, Brushaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations--criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater, 2013, 29: 28-50.
5. Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2007, 18 Suppl 3: 86-96.
6. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2002, 87: 503-509.
7. Setcos J, Khosravi R, Wilson N, Shen C, Yang M, Mjor I. Repair or replacement of amalgam restorations: Decisions at a USA and a UK dental school. Operative Dentistry, 2004, 29: 392-397.
8. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode' adhesive to enamel and dentine. Journal of Dentistry, 2012, 40: 475-484.
9. Neis CA, Albuquerque NL, Albuquerque Ide S, Gomes EA, Souza-Filho CB, Feitosa VP, Spazzin AO, Bacchi A. Surface treatments for repair of feldspathic, leucite - and lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramics using composite resin. Braz Dent J, 2015, 26: 152-155.
10. Oh W-s, Shen CJTJopd. Effect of surface topography on the bond strength of a composite to three different types of ceramic. 2003, 90: 241-246.
11. Robbins JW. Intraoral repair of the fractured porcelain restoration. Operative Dentistry, 1998, 23: 203-207.
12. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers bonded to tooth structure: an ultra-morphological FE-SEM examination of the adhesive interface. Dent Mater, 1999, 15: 105-119.
13. Colares RC, Neri JR, Souza AM, Pontes KM, Mendonca JS, Santiago SL. Effect of surface pretreatments on the microtensile bond strength of lithium-disilicate ceramic repaired with composite resin. Braz Dent J, 2013, 24: 349-352.
14. Duzyol M, Sagsoz O, Sagsoz NP, Akgul N, Yildiz M. The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM Blocks and Composite Resin. Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry, 2016, 25: 466-471.
15. Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1996, 76: 119-124.
16. Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater, 2003, 19: 725-731.
17. Dong JK OS. The microstructure of IPS Empress ceramics according to the heat treatment and the sprue type. J Korean Acad Prosthodont, 1998, 36:73-86.
18. Matsumura H, Kato H, Atsuta M. Shear bond strength to feldspathic porcelain of two luting cements in combination with three surface treatments. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1997, 78: 511-517.
19. Dellabona A, Vannoort R. Shear Vs Tensile Bond Strength of Resin Composite Bonded to Ceramic. Journal of Dental Research, 1995, 74: 1591-1596.
20. Leibrock A, Degenhart M, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G. In vitro study of the effect of thermo- and load-cycling on the bond strength of porcelain repair systems. J Oral Rehabil, 1999, 26: 130-137.
21. Sadeghi M, Davari A, Abolghasami Mahani A, Hakimi H. Influence of Different Power Outputs of Er:YAG Laser on Shear Bond Strength of a Resin Composite to Feldspathic Porcelain. J Dent (Shiraz), 2015, 16: 30-36.
22. Lundvall PKR RH, Ekstrand K. . Comparison of different etc¬hing agents and repair materials used on feldspatic porcelain. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2009, 23:1177-86.
23. Kalra A, Mohan MS, Gowda EM. Comparison of shear bond strength of two porcelain repair systems after different surface treatment. Contemp Clin Dent, 2015, 6: 196-200.
24. Celik G, Ismatullaev A, Sari T, Usumez A. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Bonding Composite to Zirconia as a Repair Method. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 2016, 13: 405-411.
25. Seabra B, Arantes-Oliveira S, Portugal J. Influence of Multimode Universal Adhesives and Zirconia Primer Application Techniques on Zirconia Repair. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2014, 112: 182-187.
26. Fornazari IA, Wille I, Meda EM, Brum RT, Souza EM. Effect of Surface Treatment, Silane, and Universal Adhesive on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanofilled Composite Repairs. Operative Dentistry, 2017, 42: 367-374.