Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins

Abstract

PURPOSE This study evaluated the shear bond strength between 3D printed provisional resin and conventional provisional resin depending on type of conventional provisional resin and different surface treatments of 3D printed resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety-six disc-shaped specimens (Ø14 mm × 20 mm thickness) were printed with resin for 3D printing (Nextdent C&B, Vertex-Dental B. V., Soesterberg, Netherlands). After post-processing, the specimens were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=12) according to two types of conventional repair resin (methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite) and four different surface treatments: no additional treatment, air abrasion, soaking in methylmethacrylate (MMA) monomer, and soaking in MMA monomer after air abrasion. After surface treatment, each repair resin was bonded in cylindrical shape using a silicone mold. Specimens were stored in 37℃ distilled water for 24 hours. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed by scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA test and Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05). RESULTS The group repaired with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment showed the highest mean shear bond strength. It was significantly higher than all four groups repaired with methylmethacrylate ( P <.05). Additional surface treatments, neither mechanical nor chemical, increased the shear bond strength within methylmethacrylate groups and bis-acryl composite groups ( P >.05). Failure mode analysis showed that cohesive failure was most frequent in both methylmethacrylate and bis-acryl composite groups. CONCLUSION Our results suggest that when repairing 3D printed provisional restoration with conventional provisional resin, repair with bis-acryl composite without additional surface treatment is recommended.

The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Repair of 3D Permanent Resin Restorations by Composite Resin Different surface treatments and repair of 3D permanent resin

“…The group repaired with bisacrylic composite without any additional surface treatment showed the highest micro-shear value and the difference from all the other groups was statistically signi cant. It was also shown that additional mechanical or chemical surface treatments did not increase the shear bond strength in the repair groups of the two different materials [31]. These results aligned with the results of the current study.…”

Bond strength between temporary 3D printable resin and conventional resin composite: influence of cleaning methods and air-abrasion parameters

“…Preliminary measurements with cleaned substrates and without mechanical pretreatment already showed insufficient bond strengths initially, especially centrifuging, and non-pretreated substrates achieved bond strength values of zero. An investigation regarding the repair of 3D-printed resin substrates resulted in the recommendation to repair the printed substrates with temporary composite resin without mechanical pretreatment, but the substrates were not chemically or physically cleaned [ 15 ].…”

“…Alumina powder displayed especially promising results [ 13 ] but has been criticized for damaging the surface, whereas air-abrasion with glass pearls would be sufficient [ 14 ]. Only a few in vitro studies have been concerned with the influence of air-particle abrasion on the surface properties of 3D printable resin restorations [ 15 , 16 ]. None of them though takes air-abrasion pressure into account.…”

Effect of surface treatment on shear bond strength of relining material and 3D-printed denture base

“…The highest bond strength was observed in the air abrasion group, and there was a significant difference. Lim and Shin 31 compared shear bond strength according to surface treatment to 3D-printed provisional resin with repair resin, composed of PMMA, as follows: no surface treatment, soaking in monomer, sandblasting with Al 2 O 3 (50 µm), and sandblasting with monomer application. All four groups exhibited no significant differences.…”