Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effect of repair protocols and chewing simulation on the microtensile bond strength of two resin matrix ceramics to composite resin

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 171 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To assess the micro tensile bond strength (µTBS) of two resin matrix ceramic (RMC) blocks bonded to composite resin by using different repair protocols with and without chewing simulation (CS).

Materials and methods

Two resin matrix ceramic blocks (Vita Enamic and Lava Ultimate) were divided into 4 groups according to the surface treatments: Bur grinding (control), Bur grinding + silane, 9.5% HF acid etching, and 9.5% HF acid etching + silane. The single bond universal adhesive was applied on all specimens after the surface treatments according to the manufacturer’s instructions, it was administered actively on the treated surface for 20 s and then light cured for 10 s, followed by incremental packing of composite resin to the treated surface. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups (with/without chewing simulation for 500,000 cycles). A micro tensile bond strength test was performed for each group (n = 15). The effect of surface treatments on the materials was examined by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The micro tensile bond strength (MPa) data were analyzed with a three-way ANOVA, the independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post-hoc test.

Results

µTBS results were significantly higher for Lava Ultimate than Vita Enamic for all the surface treatment protocols with (p < 0.01). The chewing simulation significantly negatively affected the micro-tensile bond strength (p < 0.001). Bur grinding + saline exhibited the highest bond strength values for Lava Ultimate, both with and without chewing simulation. For Vita Enamic, bur grinding + saline and HF acid + saline showed significantly higher bond strength values compared to other surface treatments, both with and without chewing simulation (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

Bur grinding + silane could be recommended as a durable repair protocol for indirect resin matrix ceramics blocks with composite resin material.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Prefabricated computer-aided designing/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks are becoming popular in clinical practice worldwide. They are used to produce a customized esthetic restoration that can provide great satisfaction for dental patients [1]. Resin matrix ceramic (RMC) CAD/CAM blocks successfully combined the merits of dental ceramics and composite resin [2]. Dental ceramics provide excellent esthetics, good biocompatibility, chemical inertness, and smooth surfaces that facilitate good gingival health [3, 4]. Dental composites are renowned for their favorable modulus of elasticity and decreased surface hardness [5]. Vita Enamic (VE) and lava ultimate (LU) are commercially available RMC blocks. VE (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) is a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network made of a porous network of pre-sintered ceramics (86% by volume) infiltrated with a polymeric material, resulting in the integration of ceramics and polymers [6]. LU (3 M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) is commonly known as resin nanoceramics [5]. It is comprised of 80 wt% nanoceramic fillers and 20 wt%. polymeric resin [7]. However, ceramic restorations are highly prone to fracture [2]. So, to fix a chipped ceramic restoration, there are two treatment modalities, either to replace the whole restoration or to repair it intraorally using composite resin. The latter option is considered simpler, cheaper, and more practical to apply with a high success rate [8].

RMC blocks are formed by polymerization under controlled conditions of high pressure and temperature [9,10,11]. They exhibit a high degree of conversion with a reduced residual monomer content, rare carbon-carbon double bonds on the surface, together with the absence of the oxygen-inhibited layer. Thus, challenges are encountered to achieve durable repair of RMC CAD/CAM blocks with resin composite [10, 12, 13]. In the literature, several surface treatment protocols have been proposed to improve the durability of ceramic/composite resin bonds: including acid etching, airborne particle abrasion, and diamond bur grinding [1, 14,15,16].

Multiple studies were carried out to investigate the effect of aging, whether water storage or thermocycling, on these surface treatments [12, 17,18,19,20]. However, there were no sufficient studies to investigate the impact of mechanical stresses applied during mastication on the repaired restorations as the stresses become magnified at the bonded interface due to the mismatch in the elastic modulus between the two materials [17]. Therefore, there is no conclusive recommendation yet, that favors a durable repair protocol to be implemented to repair fractured RMC block restorations. According to the survey, the repair or replacement of a defective restoration performed by the American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel, the most used surface treatments to repair all-ceramic restorations; are diamond bur, hydrofluoric acid, and silane coupling agents [21].

For the given reasons, this study aims to evaluate the bond strength of RMC CAD/CAM blocks bonded to composite resin, using different surface treatments with and without CS. The first null hypothesis is that the proposed surface treatments will not affect the micro tensile bond strength (µTBS) of the bonded RMC blocks. The second null hypothesis, there is no difference between the 2 different RMC blocks on the µTBS of the bonded RMC blocks. The third null hypothesis is that CS will not affect µTBS of the bonded RMC blocks.

Materials and methods

The Materials used in this study are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Materials used in the study, their brand names, compositions, manufacturers, and lot numbers
Full size table

The sample size calculated for the µTBS test was based on the data obtained from an internal pilot study using G*Power version 3.1.9.2 for sample size analysis at α = 0.05 and 80% power and effect size equal to 0.5202 that yields a sample size of 12 samples per group. Fifteen specimens per group were used to gain extra power. A total of 240 RMC/composite beam-shaped specimens were prepared for bond strength testing. The specimens were divided into 2 main groups according to the type of RMC block (VE and LU). Each material group was further subdivided into 4 subgroups according to the surface treatments. Each surface treatment group was divided into 2 groups (with and without CS) (n = 15). The original VE and LU blocks were cut using a 7-inch low concentration (LC) diamond wafer blade (Kemet, Maidstone, UK), mounted in a low-speed linear precision cutting saw (Isomet 4000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) into 8 mini-blocks (5 × 12 × 14 mm) from each material. The cutting procedure was performed at 3200 rpm and a feed rate of 6 mm/min., under copious water coolant. For each mini-block, the surface that will receive the surface treatment was wet-polished with 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 grit silicon carbide papers, respectively. Polishing was done in a unidirectional circular motion for 1 min, with light pressure to ensure a standardized surface roughness before applying the surface treatment on the polished surface. After that, all the polished blocks were cleaned ultrasonically in distilled water for 5 min; to ensure a clean, non-contaminated surface [22]. The polished blocks from each RMC block were randomly allocated into 4 subgroups and subjected to different surface treatments. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Workflow diagram for specimens’ preparation

Full size image

Bur grinding group (B) (Control): the polished surface was roughened with a standard wheel stone (Shenzhen Dian Fong Abrasives, Guangdong, China) for five strokes in one direction with light pressure, using a water-cooled high-speed handpiece [14].

Bur grinding + silane group (B + S): the same procedure as the B group [14]. Then, the surface was air-dried, and the silane coupling agent was applied for 60 s, and then gently dried for 5 s [4].

Hydrofluoric acid etching group (HF): the polished surface was subjected to 9.5% HF acid for 60 s, followed by rinsing for 60 s using an air-water spray [6].

Hydrofluoric acid etching + saline group (HF + S): the same procedure as the HF group, after drying the surface, the silane coupling agent was applied for 60 s, followed by gentle dryness for 5 s.

Following the surface treatments, the universal adhesive was applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions. It was administered actively on the treated surface for 20 s. Then lightly air-dried with air-water spray until no movement of the adhesive layer was visible to ensure that the solvent had evaporated. The universal adhesive was cured for 10 s for 4 overlapping cycles to cover the entire treated surface.

Afterward, the nanohybrid composite build-up was bonded to the surface-treated RMC blocks [23]. Putty impression mold (5 mm height×12 mm width×14 mm length) was used through which increments of 2 mm composite resin were packed on the treated surface and light-cured for 40 s for 4 overlapping cycles, using an LED light-curing unit with an output intensity of 1200 mW/cm2 (Elipar, S10, 3 M ESPE, Germany). Incremental packing of composite resin continued till the composite build-up reached the (5 mm height×12 mm width×14 mm length) [4]. Extra curing was done on the sides of the block against the celluloid matrix to ensure adequate curing.

Each RMC/composite block was divided into 2 groups: according to mechanical aging. In the first group (without CS), the ceramic/composite blocks were stored in distilled water for 24 h after bonding inside the incubator (Titanox, art. a3-213-400I, Italy) at 37 degrees Celsius. In the second group (with CS), the ceramic/composite blocks were subjected to 500,000 cycles in the chewing simulator (SD mechatronik CS-4, Germany). The ceramic/composite blocks were mounted inside the chewing simulator chambers, stabilized with an acrylic base, and submerged in distilled water. A ceramic ball was used as the antagonist, applying the 50 N force [24] vertically on the composite side of the bonded block with a frequency of 1.85 Hz.

The ceramic/composite blocks from all groups were sectioned longitudinally in two perpendicular directions by using the Isomet 4000. The Isomet cut the block in one longitudinal X-axis, and then the block was rotated 90° to produce the second cut in a longitudinal Y-axis. Both longitudinal X and Y directions are perpendicular to the bonded interface; [20] to create beam-shaped specimens (ceramic/composite) of approximately (0.9 × 0.9 × 10 mm). The samples from the edges of the blocks were excluded.

For µTBS testing, the beams were glued from their edges to the upper and the lower parts of special jigs using cyanoacrylate so that the bonded interface was centralized between the proximal jigs [25]. The specimens were tested in a universal testing machine (Instron 3356, UK) at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed till fracture [20]. Bond strength values in MPa were calculated by Bluehill 3 software by dividing the maximum load at fracture by the surface area.

For Failure mode analysis, the fractured beams obtained from the µTBS test were examined using a digital microscope (Dino-lite pro) with 50× magnification power. The failure modes were classified into three categories: A-adhesive failure at the interface between the ceramic substrate and the composite resin, C-cohesive failure in the ceramic or the composite, and M-mixed failure involving both the adhesive and cohesive failure.

For SEM, three representative specimens for each material were examined with the SEM (n = 6). Each material received three surface pretreatments: no surface treatment, bur grinding, and HF acid etching to evaluate the morphological differences in the surface topographies induced by the proposed mechanical surface treatments. The specimens were mounted on metallic stubs and sputter-coated with gold using a sputter coater (Quorum, Q150T ES), then were examined using SEM (TEGSCAN, VEGA 3) at 1000x magnification power.

Statistical analysis was computed by using SPSS (statistical package for social sciences, IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, version 24 software, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp, USA). The results were presented as means and standard deviations. The data were checked for normality by using the Kolmogorov – Smirnov test and the Shapiro test, and the results were normally distributed. Three-way ANOVA was carried out to explore the effect of the material, surface treatment, and aging on the micro tensile bond strength. Following significant interactions, an independent t-test was conducted to explore the effect of material and aging on the micro tensile bond strength. One-way ANOVA between groups was conducted to explore the effect of different surface treatments on micro tensile bond strength. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test were used to investigate differences between groups, and the significance level was set at (p ≤ 0.05).

Results

The means and standard deviation of µTBS testing are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Mean values and standard deviation of micro tensile bond strength (µTBS) test (MPa)
Full size table

For all groups, the T-test results for independent samples indicated that the (LU) groups showed significantly higher mean bond strength values compared to the (VE) groups (p < 0.01), irrespective of the effect of CS. For all groups, the T-test for independent samples indicated that (without CS) groups showed a significantly higher mean bond strength compared to (with CS) groups (p < 0.001), irrespective of the effect of the material and the different surface treatments. Then, the data were analyzed with One-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post hoc test. Failure modes distribution for the µTBS test is illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Different modes of failure for without chewing simulation groups

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Different modes of failure for chewing simulation groups

Full size image

SEM images (Fig. 4) show the effect of the HF acid etching and Bur roughening surface treatments on the materials revealing a honeycomb-like structure formed by the remaining polymeric network after HF acid etching. However, LU showed different size porosities on the surface that were shallower, more irregular, and more in number in comparison to the no-treatment specimens. After bur roughening, both materials exhibited a ruffled surface topography that was more obvious on the LU with well-defined elevations and depressions.

Fig. 4
figure 4

shows the SEM images at 1000x of (a) VE without surface treatment (b) VE with bur grinding (c) VE with HF acid etching (d) LU without surface treatment (e) LU with bur grinding (f) LU with HF acid etching

Full size image

Discussion

In the present study, all null hypotheses were rejected as there was a significant difference between the surface treatments and their effect on the two RMC blocks. There was a significant difference between the two RMC blocks. Also, a significant decrease in the repaired bond strength values after CS was observed.

The surface treatments applied in this study were chosen due to their availability in dental clinics, ease of administration, and popularity of use in dental practice [21]. The choice of the diamond burs in this research as a mechanical surface treatment to boost the bond is because of its simplicity and cost-effectiveness in inducing surface roughness on the ceramic substrate [26]. Furthermore, it would be essential to refresh the material surface for bonding and remove the contaminated chipped surface layer of the restoration exposed to saliva. HF etching is the benchmark for ceramics as the HF acid dissolves the glassy phase leaving the crystalline phase, providing a porous adherend [19, 27, 28]. HF acid is often used to prepare the silicate-based ceramic surface for cementation extra-orally and intraoral repair. Despite being classified in 1998 as a highly hazardous chemical, its use becomes preferable when compared with additional removal of the tooth structure. However, rubber dam isolation is mandatory in this situation to avoid soft tissue contact and saliva contamination [29].

Airborne particle abrasion proved efficient in bond improvement. However, it had many shortcomings, including contamination of the surface with sand particles, risk of health complications, excessive volume loss from the treated surface [30], the possibility of material weakening due to crack formation, [31] and the costly device [15].

LU generally showed significantly higher bond strength values than VE for the µTBS results. This could be attributed to the difference in the elastic modulus and chemical composition between the VE and LU. The elastic modulus of substrates is a notable factor in determining bonding strength values. For the low young’s modulus materials, stresses disseminate throughout the material. While in the materials of high elastic modulus, stresses concentrate at the bonding interface [17]. A previous study stated that VE has an elastic modulus of almost three times the elastic modulus of LU [32]. This gives LU a superior advantage over VE in assessing the repair bond strength [17].

For VE, HF acid etching managed to offer a high repair bond strength comparable to Bur roughening. Regarding LU, Bur roughening provided superior bond strength results than HF acid etching. This difference could be attributed to the marked difference in the composition between those materials [33]. VE has a high portion of silica-based ceramic that can react with the HF acid, dissolving the glassy phase. The etching leaves the polymer network unchanged, creating a honeycomb-like appearance, and a high tendency for micromechanical interlocking [33]. However, LU contains mainly zirconia and zirconia-silica clusters which are more resistant to etching [18]. These were evident in the SEM images illustrating the effect of each surface treatment on the materials’ surface topography. On the contrary, the bur grinding induced a ruffled surface on both materials, enhancing their mechanical interlocking.

This study revealed that the additional use of the silane coupling agent after mechanical surface conditioning had increased the µTBS for VE with and without CS. This finding agrees with previous studies and literature [6, 16, 31, 34]. This outcome is most likely because of the glassy portion in the VE structure, where the silane coupling agent can chemically bond, unlike LU [32]. Therefore, it could be recommended to add a silane coupling agent to the repair protocol of RMC CAD/CAM blocks with composite resin [16].

CS was carried out for 500,000 cycles which is equivalent to 2 years of service [35]. The results of the two RMC blocks showed a significant reduction in the µTBS. Cyclic loading may have initiated microscopic cracks in areas of intense loading that propagated and coalesced with preexisting flaws, thus weakening the materials. [36] The results of our research agreed with the study performed by Al-Harbi et al. [36] Moreover, comparing the effect of silane application on the µTBS values for both materials with and without aging indicated that the chemical bond was negatively affected by aging. This reduction could be due to the susceptibility of the siloxane bond (Si-O-Si) to hydrolysis [33]. Despite the reduced bond strength values after aging, all proposed surface treatments produced bond strength values that exceeded the acceptable range of bond strength 15 to 25 MPa indicated for clinical situations [1]. Thus, they were proven to be durable, efficient, and practical, thus can be readily used to repair RMC blocks.

One of the limitations of this study is that only two mechanical surface treatments were used. Another limitation is that only the effect of masticatory forces was investigated, without taking into consideration other intraoral factors that can affect the bond strength including temperature fluctuations and pH changes.

Conclusion

With the limitations in this study, it could be concluded that; the surface roughness induced by the bur grinding coupled with the separate silane coupling agent application was the most efficient durable repair protocol for both materials. Thus, it could be used instead of HF acid, which is hazardous and should be used with extreme caution intraorally.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

µTBS:

Micro tensile bond strength

RMC:

Resin matrix ceramic

CS:

Chewing simulation

SEM:

Scanning electron microscope

CAD/CAM:

Computer-aided designing/ computer-aided manufacturing

VE:

Vita Enamic

LU:

Lava ultimate

LC:

Low concentration

B:

Bur grinding group

B + S:

Bur grinding + silane group

HF:

Hydrofluoric acid etching group

HF + S:

Hydrofluoric acid etching + saline group

References

  1. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(2):161–7. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-159.

  2. Ustun O, Buyukhatipoglu IK, Secilmis A. Shear Bond Strength of Repair Systems to New CAD/CAM Restorative Materials. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2018;27(8):748–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12564.

  3. Abu-Obaid Aa, AlMawash A, Alyabis N, Alzaaqi N. An in vitro evaluation of the effect of polishing on the stainability of different CAD/CAM ceramic materials. The Saudi Dental Journal. 2020;32(3):135–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.08.005.

  4. Bello YD, Di Domenico MB, Magro LD, Lise MW, Corazza PH, et al. Bond strength between composite repair and polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material: Effect of different surface treatments. J Esthetic Restor Dentistry: Official Publication Am Acad Esthetic Dentistry. 2019;31(3):275–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Subasi MG, Alp G. Repair bond strengths of non-aged and aged resin nanoceramics. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(5):364–70. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.364.

  6. Lise DP, Van Ende A, De Munck J, Vieira L, Baratieri LN, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Cement to Novel CAD/CAM Materials as a Function of Surface Treatment and Aging. Operative dentistry. 2017;42(1):73-81. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-263-L.

  7. Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Egilmez F, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Micro-shear bond strength of different resin cements to ceramic/glass-polymer CAD-CAM block materials. Journal of prosthodontic research. 2016;60(4):265–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.02.003.

  8. Tatar N, Ural C. Repair success of two innovative hybrid materials as a function of different surface treatments. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(3):267–70. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elnawawy HM, Morsi TS, El-Askary FS. The effect of different bonding protocols on the repair microshear bond strength of water-stored CAD/CAM resin composite. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2018;32(20):2254–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2018.1474563.

  10. Kim JE, Kim JH, Shim JS, Roh BD, Shin Y. Effect of air-particle pressures on the surface topography and bond strengths of resin cement to the hybrid ceramics. Dent Mater J. 2017;36(4):454–60. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-293.

  11. Arpa C, Ceballos L, Fuentes MV, Perdigao J. Repair bond strength and nanoleakage of artificially aged CAD-CAM composite resin. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(3):523–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.013.

  12. Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Ilie N. Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitro using different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Invest. 2015;19(2):299–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1269-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Loomans B, Ozcan M. Intraoral Repair of Direct and Indirect Restorations: Procedures and Guidelines. Operative dentistry. 2016;41(S7):S68–S78. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-269-LIT.

  14. Zaghloul H, Elkassas DW, Haridy MF. Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks. European journal of dentistry. 2014;8(1):44–52. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.126240.

  15. Gul P, Altinok-Uygun L. Repair bond strength of resin composite to three aged CAD/CAM blocks using different repair systems. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2020;12(3):131–9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.3.131.

  16. Bahadir HS, Bayraktar Y. Evaluation of the repair capacities and color stabilities of a resin nanoceramic and hybrid CAD/CAM blocks. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2020;12(3):140–9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.3.140.

  17. Bayraktar Y, Demirtağ Z, Çelik Ç. Effect of Er:YAG laser pulse duration on repair bond strength of resin-based and hybrid CAD/CAM restorative materials. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2021:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2021.1932301.

  18. Abouelleil H, Colon P, Jeannin C, Goujat A, Attik N, Laforest L et al. Impact of the Microstructure of CAD/CAM Blocks on the Bonding Strength and the Bonded Interface. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2021;0:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13361.

  19. Niizuma Y, Kobayashi M, Toyama T, Manabe A. Effect of etching with low concentration hydrofluoric acid on the bond strength of CAD/CAM resin block. Dental Materials Journal. 2020;39(6):1000–8. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2018-398.

  20. El Gezawi M, Haridy R, Abo Elazm E, Al-Harbi F, Zouch M, Kaisarly D. Microtensile bond strength, 4-point bending and nanoleakage of resin-dentin interfaces: Effects of two matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. 2018;78:206-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.024.

  21. da Costa JB, Frazier K, Duong ML, Khajotia S, Kumar P, Urquhart O et al. Defective restoration repair or replacement: An American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel survey. J Am Dent Assoc. 2021;152(4):329–30 e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2021.01.011.

  22. Celik E, Sahin SC, Dede DO. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of indirect resin composite to resin matrix ceramics. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2019;11(4):223–31. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.4.223.

  23. Duzyol M, Sagsoz O, Polat Sagsoz N, Akgul N, Yildiz M. The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM Blocks and Composite Resin. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2016;25(6):466–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12322.

  24. de Vasconcellos LG, Buso L, Lombardo GH, Souza RO, Nogueira L Jr., Bottino MA et al. Opaque layer firing temperature and aging effect on the flexural strength of ceramic fused to cobalt-chromium alloy. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2010;19(6):471–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00600.x.

  25. Elmalawany LM, Sherief DI, Alian GA. Theobromine versus casein phospho-peptides/Amorphous calcium phosphate with fluoride as remineralizing agents: effect on resin-dentine bond strength, microhardness, and morphology of dentine. BMC oral health. 2023;23(1):447. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03139-z.

  26. Wahsh MM, Ghallab OH. Influence of different surface treatments on microshear bond strength of repair resin composite to two CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. Tanta Dental Journal. 2015;12(3):178–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tdj.2015.06.001.

  27. Kilinc H, Sanal FA, Turgut S. Shear bond strengths of aged and non-aged CAD/CAM materials after different surface treatments. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2020;12(5):273–82. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.273.

  28. Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Cengiz E, Ongun S, Karakaya I. The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Mechanical and Optical Behaviors of CAD/CAM Restorative Materials. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2019;28(2):e496-e503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12749.

  29. Al-Turki L, Merdad Y, Abuhaimed TA, Sabbahi D, Almarshadi M, Aldabbagh R. Repair bond strength of dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured ceramics after different surface treatments. Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry: official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry. 2020;32(7):726–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12635.

  30. Barutcigil K, Barutcigil C, Kul E, Ozarslan MM, Buyukkaplan US. Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Bond Strength of Resin Cement to a CAD/CAM Restorative Material. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2019;28(1):71–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12574.

  31. May MM, Rodrigues CS, Da Rosa JB, Herrmann JP, May LG. Surface treatment and adhesion approaches on polymer-infiltrated ceramic network. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences. 2021;20:e211670. https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v20i00.8661670.

  32. Sismanoglu S, Tugce Gurcan A, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Gumustas B. Mechanical properties and repair bond strength of polymer‐based CAD/CAM restorative materials. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology. 2020;18(2):312–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijac.13653.

  33. Yu H, Ozcan M, Yoshida K, Cheng H, Sawase T. Bonding to industrial indirect composite blocks: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2020;36(1):119–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.002.

  34. Sismanoglu S, Gurcan AT, Yildirim-Bilmez Z, Turunc-Oguzman R, Gumustas B. Effect of surface treatments and universal adhesive application on the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM materials. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2020;12(1):22–32. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.1.22.

  35. Egilmez F, Ergun G, Cekic-Nagas I, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ. Does artificial aging affect mechanical properties of CAD/CAM composite materials. Journal of prosthodontic research. 2018;62(1):65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.001.

  36. Al-Harbi FA, Ayad NM, ArRejaie AS, Bahgat HA, Baba NZ. Effect of Aging Regimens on Resin Nanoceramic Chairside CAD/CAM Material. Journal of prosthodontics: official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2017;26(5):432–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12408.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of dental biomaterials, dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Annan Ahmed Elkassaby, Mohamed M. Kandil & Ghada Atef Alian

Authors
  1. Annan Ahmed Elkassaby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed M. Kandil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghada Atef Alian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.E: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization. M.K: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing. G.A: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration, Validation.1-3 reviewed manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annan Ahmed Elkassaby.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elkassaby, A.A., Kandil, M. & Alian, G. The effect of repair protocols and chewing simulation on the microtensile bond strength of two resin matrix ceramics to composite resin. BMC Oral Health 24, 171 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03932-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03932-4

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us