The impact of different surface treatments on repair bond strength of conventionally, subtractive‐, and additive‐manufactured denture bases

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the shear bond strength (SBS) of repair material to conventionally, subtractive‐, and additive‐manufactured denture bases after different surface treatments.Materials and MethodsDisk‐shaped test specimens (N = 300) were prepared from denture base materials produced by one conventional (Procryla), one subtractive (Yamahachi), and one additive (Curo Denture) method. The test specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) and exposed to a variety of surface treatments—Group A: no surface treatment; Group B: grinding with silicon carbide paper; Group C: sandblasting; Group D: erbium: yttrium‐aluminum‐garnet laser; and Group E: plasma. Repair was performed with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Meliodent). Surface roughness analyses were performed with a profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy was used to examine one specimen from each subgroup. SBS was evaluated on a universal testing machine. Failure types were observed under a stereomicroscope.ResultsSurface roughness values were significantly higher in all test materials in Group D than in the other groups (p < 0.001). For conventional resin, the SBS values were higher in Group C than in Groups A, D, and E (p < 0.001). For CAD/CAM material, Groups B and C had significantly greater SBS increases compared with Group E (p < 0.001). For 3D material, Group D showed higher SBS than all groups except Group C (p < 0.001).ConclusionsFor SBS, sandblasting was most effective in the conventional group, whereas laser treatment was the most effective in the additive‐manufactured group. For the subtractive group, surface treatments other than plasma exhibited similar SBS.Clinical SignificanceIn repairing fractured prostheses, any degree of roughening suitable for the material content may provide an SBS benefit.