IADR 95th

53/75

-53-CERASMART2350 MicrotensileBond Strength of Adhesively Bonded CAD/CAM Materials to DentinOral Presentation3:15 PM–3:30 PM Mar 24, 2017CC, Room 2020 Authors:Authors:NurayCapa, YeditepeUniversity Faculty of DentistryEsraCan Say (Presenter)YeditepeUniversity Faculty of DentistryCansinCelebi, YeditepeUniversity Faculty of DentistryAycaCasur, YeditepeUniversity Faculty of DentistryAbstract: Objectives: To evaluate the effect of different resin cements, type and surface treatments of Objectives: To evaluate the effect of different resin cements, type and surface treatments of CAD/CAM materials on the microtensilebond strength (µTBS) to dentin.Methods: Two types of CAD/CAM blocks (nanoceramic Lava Ultimate, LVU; 3M ESPE and composite Cerasmart, CS; GC) were cut in slabs of 4mm thickness, sandblasted and then divided into 5 groups according to the following surface treatments: Group 1:Silane primer (Kerr), Group 2:Silane primer+OptibondXTR adhesive (Kerr), Group 3:Optibond XTR adhesive, Group 4:RelyX Ceramic Primer+SingleBond Universal (3M ESPE) and Group 5:Single Bond Universal. Then LVU and CS specimens were bonded to the mid coronal dentin surfaces of 50 noncarioushuman third and CS specimens were bonded to the mid coronal dentin surfaces of 50 noncarioushuman third molars using either Nexus3 with OptibondXTR (Kerr; n:30) or RelyXUltimate with Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE; n:20) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All the specimeswere thermocyledfor 5000 (5°C/55°C) cycles, sectioned into 1mm2sticks and µTBS (MPa) was determined using an Universal testing machine (Instron). Data were analyzed with three way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey’stests (p<0.05).Results: µTBS was significantly influenced by the type of CAD/CAM material (p<0.0001) and by different surface treatments (p<0.0001) however not by the type of resin cement (p>0.05). different surface treatments (p<0.0001) however not by the type of resin cement (p>0.05). Regardless of the surface treatments and resin cements, bonding of CS to dentin was significantly higher than bonding of LVU. For LVU and CS the highest bond strentgthswere obtained with Group 2 (28.27±11.79; 45.27±13.69), Group 4 (28.85±7.58; 48.6±11.83) and Group 5 (27.82±5.78; 45.13±7.16) while the lowest with Group 1 (17.33±4.46; 27.63±5.12) and Group 3 (18.56±5.6; 29.72±5.49) which were not significantly different from each other in each CAD/CAM material (p >0.05).Conclusions: Composite CAD/CAM blocks appear more bonding-receptive than resin nanoConclusions: Composite CAD/CAM blocks appear more bonding-receptive than resin nanoceramic blocks. Chemical adhesion using silaneor an universal adhesive following sandblasting are effective surface treatment methods for CAD/CAM blocks.Disclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: noneI have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by EsraCan SayReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-53-abstract number 2350, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/329702, 2017