Eyyüp ALTINTAŞ, Emrah AYNA, Ayça Deniz İZGİ

Zirkonya Esaslı Seramiklerin Tamir Bağlanma Dayanımlarının Farklı Tamir Yöntemleri ve Sistemleri Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi

sistemlerinin bağlanma dayanımını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: 4.00 mm boyunda, 5.4 mm eninde ve 3.00 mm yüksekliğinde tam seramik bloklar (IPS Empress II; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lihtenştayn), dental laboratuarda otuz adet olarak üretilmiştir. CEREC Sistemi ile 5.00 mm uzunluğunda, 5.4 mm genişliğinde ve 13.0 mm yüksekliğinde yetmiş (n=40) CAD/CAM zirkonya blok(Prozir; SeramDent, Türkiye) tamamen sinterlenmiş Y-TZP çekirdeğinden üretilmiştir. Zirkonya örnekleri farklı ağız içi tamir sistemleri (Clearfil, Cimara Zircon, Bisco) ve bir kontrol grubu olarak rastgele yedi gruba ayrıldı. Her on numune aynı boyutta tamir edilmiştir. Kontrol grubu, kırılmamış katı zirkonya seramik numuneleri olarak geleneksel fırınlama ile üretilmiştir. Her numuneye 5000 termal döngü uygulandı. SBSt (Kesme bağ mukavemeti testi), yüklemeden kopma oluncaya kadar olan durumu kaydetmek için onarılan parçaya kuvvet uygulanarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Başarısızlık tipi, bir dijital mikroskop ve SEM kullanılarak değerlendirildi. SBSt verileri, tek yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey'in HSD testi kullanılarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: Clearfil ve Cimara Zircon sistemleri, Bisco sistemi ile karşılaştırıldığında kompozit rezin yöntemi için bağlanma gücünü önemli ölçüde artırdı (sırasıyla p

Evaluation of Repair Bond Strenght of Different Repair Methods and Systems to Zirconia Based Ceramics

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the bond strength of different repair systems by using composite resin and ceramic cementation repair methods to zirconia-based ceramics. Material and Method: All-ceramic blocks (IPS Empress II; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) sized 4.00 mm in length, 5.4 mm in width, and 3.00 mm in height were fabricated by dental laboratory as thirty specimens. CAD/CAM zirconia blocks (n =40) (Prozir; SeramDent, Turkey) sized 5.00 mm in length, 5.4 mm in width and 13.0 mm in height by CEREC System were fabricated from fully sintered Y-TZP core. Zirconia specimens were randomly divided into seven groups for the following different intraoral repair systems(Clearfil, Cimara Zircon, Bisco) and a control group. Every ten specimens were repaired as same sized. Control group was fabricated by conventional firing as unbroken solid zirconia ceramic samples. Each specimen underwent 5000 cycles of thermocycling. The SBSt (Shear bond strength test) was performed by loading force on the repaired piece to record load-to-failure. Failure mode was evaluated using a digital microscope and SEM. SBSt data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test. Results: Clearfil and Cimara Zircon systems significantly increased the bond strength for composite resin method when compared with the Bisco system (respectively p

PDF

___

1. Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, Cowan AJ, Lamb J, Thompson O, Tulloch N. Five-year clinical evaluation of zirconia-based bridges in patients in UK general dental practices. J Dent 2013; 41: 992- 9.
2. Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1556-67.
3. Cristoforides P, Amaral R, May LG, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Composite resin to yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal bonding: comparison of repair methods. Oper Dent 2012; 37: 263-71.
4. Thompson JY, Stoner BR, Piascik JR, Smith R. Adhesion/cementation to zirconia and other nonsilicate ceramics: where are we now? Dent Mater 2011; 27: 71-82.
5. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 419-26.
6. Ustun O, Buyukhatipoglu IK, Secilmis A. Shear Bond Strength of Repair Systems to New CAD/CAM Restorative Materials. J Prosthodont 2018; 27: 748-54.
7. Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years: III. Conventional FPDs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 654-66.
8. Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle 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: 86-96.
9. Lorente MC, Scherrer SS, Richard J, Demellayer R, Amez-Droz M, Wiskott HA. Surface roughness and EDS characterization of a Y-TZP dental ceramic treated with the CoJet™ Sand. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 1035-42.
10. Comlekoglu M, Dundar M, Özcan M, Gungor M, Gokce B, Artunc C. Influence of cervical finish line type on the marginal adaptation of zirconia ceramic crowns. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 586-92.
11. Fischer J, Grohmann P, Stawarczyk B. Effect of zirconia surface treatments on the shear strength of zirconia/veneering ceramic composites. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 448-54.
12. Inokoshi M, Kameyama A, De Munck J, Minakuchi S, Van Meerbeek B. Durable bonding to mechanically and/or chemically pre-treated dental zirconia. J Dent 2013; 41: 170-9.
13. Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Kano T, Fukushima S. The influence of zirconia coping designs on the fracture load of all-ceramic molar crowns. Dent Mater J 2011; 30: 281-5.
14. Lughi V, Sergo V. Low temperature degradationaging- of zirconia: A critical review of the relevant aspects in dentistry. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 807-20.
15. Monaco C, Tucci A, Esposito L, Scotti R. Microstructural changes produced by abrading YTZP in presintered and sintered conditions. J Dent 2013; 41: 121-6.
16. Crisp R, Cowan A, Lamb J, Thompson O, Tulloch N, Burke F. A clinical evaluation of all-ceramic bridges placed in patients attending UK general dental practices: three-year results. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 229-36.
17. Lee SJ, Cheong CW, Wright RF, Chang BM. Bond strength of the porcelain repair system to all ceramic copings and porcelain. J Prosthodont 2014; 23: 112-6.
18. Gargari M, Gloria F, Napoli E, Pujia AM. Zirconia: cementation of prosthetic restorations. Literature review. Oral Implantol 2010; 3: 25.
19. Agingu C, Zhang C-y, Jiang N-w, Cheng H, Özcan M, Yu H. Intraoral repair of chipped or fractured veneered zirconia crowns and fixed dental prosthesis: clinical guidelines based on literature review. J Adhes Sci Technol 2018; 32: 1711-23.
20. Han P, Li H, Walsh LJ, Ivanovski S. Splatters and Aerosols contamination in dental aerosol generating procedures. Appl Sci 2021; 11: 1914.
21. Zemouri C, de Soet H, Crielaard W, Laheij A. A scoping review on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental environment. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0178007.
22. Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, Cheng L, Zhou X, Ren B. Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. Int J Oral Sci 2020; 12: 1-6.
23. Kim B-K, Bae HE-K, Shim J-S, Lee K-W. The influence of ceramic surface treatments on the tensile bond strength of composite resin to allceramic coping materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94: 357-62.
24. Ozcan M, Van Der Sleen JM, Kurunmäki H, Vallittu PK. Comparison of repair methods for ceramic fused to metal crowns. J Prosthodont 2006; 15: 283-8.
25. Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Pereira SM, Amaral R, Bottino MA, Pekkan G. Effect of surface conditioning modalities on the repair bond strength of resin composite to the zirconia core/veneering ceramic complex. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15: 207-10.
26. Kumchai H, Juntavee P, Sun AF, Nathanson D. Comparing the Repair of veneered zirconia crowns with ceramic or composite resin: an in vitro study. Dent J 2020; 8: 37.
27. Yoo J-Y, Yoon H-I, Park J-M, Park E-J. Porcelain repair-Influence of different systems and surface treatments on resin bond strength. J Adv Prosthodont 2015; 7: 343-8.
28. Shin YJ, Shin Y, Yi YA, Kim J, Lee IB, Cho BH, et al. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of resin cement to Y TZP ceramic after different surface treatments. Scanning 2014; 36: 479-86.
29. Usumez A, Hamdemirci N, Koroglu BY, Simsek I, Parlar O, Sari T. Bond strength of resin cement to zirconia ceramic with different surface treatments. Lasers Med Sci 2013; 28: 259-66.
30. Han I-H, Kang D-W, Chung C-H, Choe H-C, Son M-K. Effect of various intraoral repair systems on the shear bond strength of composite resin to zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 2013; 5: 248-55.
31. Tylka DF, Stewart GP. Comparison of acidulated phosphate fluoride gel and hydrofluoric acid etchants for porcelain-composite repair. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72: 121-7.
32. Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 119-24.
33. Blum IR, Nikolinakos N, Lynch CD, Wilson NH, Millar BJ, Jagger DC. An in vitro comparison of four intra-oral ceramic repair systems. J Dent 2012; 40: 906-12.
34. Ozcan M, Valandro LF, Amaral R, Leite F, Bottino MA. Bond strength durability of a resin composite on a reinforced ceramic using various repair systems. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1477-83.
35. Schmitz K, Schulmeyer H. Determination of the adhesion of dental metal-porcelain bonding systems. Dent Labor 1975; 23: 1416-20.
36. Blackburn C, Rask H, Awada A. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD-CAM materials after accelerated aging. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 954-8.
37. Celik Koycu B, Imirzalıoglu P. Heat transfer and thermal stress analysis of a mandibular molar tooth restored by different indirect restorations using a three dimensional finite element method. J Prosthodont 2017; 26: 460-73.
38. Subası MG, Alp G. Repair bond strengths of nonaged and aged resin nanoceramics. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9: 364-70.
39. Cınar S, Kırmalı O. Repair bond strength of composite resin to zirconia restorations after different thermal cycles. J Adv Prosthodont 2019; 11: 297-304.
40. Kirmali O, Kapdan A, Harorli OT, Barutcugil C, Ozarslan MM. Efficacy of ceramic repair material on the bond strength of composite resin to zirconia ceramic. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73: 28-32.
41. Gul P, Altınok-Uygun L. Repair bond strength of resin composite to three aged CAD/CAM blocks using different repair systems. J Adv Prosthodont 2020; 12: 131.
42. Kocaagaoğlu H, Manav T, Albayrak H. In vitro comparison of the bond strength between ceramic repair systems and ceramic materials and evaluation of the wettability. J Prosthodont 2017; 26: 238-43.
43. Ozcan M, Niedermeier W. Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metalceramic restorations and survival of repairs. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 299-302.
44. Mohamed FF, Finkelman M, Zandparsa R, Hirayama H, Kugel G. Effects of surface treatments and cement types on the bond strength of porcelain-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthodont 2014; 23: 618-25.
45. Akay C, Cakırbay Tanıs M, Sen M. Effects of hot chemical etching and 10-Metacryloxydecyl Dihydrogen Phosphate (MDP) monomer on the bond strength of zirconia ceramics to resin-based cements. J Prosthodont 2017; 26: 419-23.