Affiliation:
1. Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, Robert Schattner Center, Penn Dental Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
2. Department of Periodontology, Endodontology, and Cariology, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel UZB University of Basel Basel Switzerland
Abstract
AbstractObjectiveObtaining strong resin bonds to computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) resin‐based composites with dispersed fillers (CCRBCs) poses a challenge. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effect of three universal adhesives and a two‐component silane coupling agent on the shear bond strength to three (CCRBCs).Materials and MethodsEight hundred and sixty‐four specimens of Brilliant Crios, Lava Ultimate, and Tetric CAD were polished or grit blasted, bonded with Adhese Universal DC, One Coat 7 Universal (OC7), and Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive (SBU) with or without a silane primer. Shear bond strength was measured after 24 h and 10,000 thermocycles. Linear regressions were performed (α = 0.05).ResultsAfter thermocycling, bond strengths were similar for the universal adhesives on polished Brilliant Crios and Lava Ultimate (p ≥ 0.408). Grit blasted Tetric CAD showed no significant differences (p ≥ 0.096). The silane primer had minimal impact on grit blasted Tetric CAD (p ≥ 0.384). The silane primer increased the bond strength of OC7 to Brilliant Crios (p = 0.001) but decreased the adhesion of SBU to Brilliant Crios and Lava Ultimate (p ≤ 0.018).ConclusionsBond strength of universal adhesives varied with CCRBC type. The two‐component silane coupling agent showed mixed effects on adhesive performance.Clinical SignificanceSelecting universal adhesives from the same CCRBC product line does not always guarantee superior bond strength. The efficacy of silane coupling agents differs based on the bonding substrate.
Funder
Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft