The effect of space setting values and restorative block materials on the bonding of metal-free CAD/CAM onlay restorations

Abstract

The effects of space setting values and restorative materials on the bonding of metal-free CAD/CAM onlay restoration were examined quantitatively and qualitatively. Seventy-two standardized MODB onlay cavities, prepared using human molars were restored under nine conditions, based on three space setting values, Increased (IC), Standard (SC, control), Decreased (DC), and three restorative block materials, resin-composites (RC), lithium disilicate glass-ceramics (LD), Feldspar ceramics (FC, control). All the restored specimens were subjected to cyclic loading and thereafter the microtensile bond strength (µ-TBS) was measured and analyzed statistically. The effect of space setting value on the µ-TBS varied with the restorative material. The bonding reliability of RC and the bonding durability of LD were significantly superior to FC. The bonding characteristics of RC under IC and DC were similar to those under SC. LD under DC and FC under IC were effective in obtaining an excellent bonding reliability relative to their SC.

Effects of Removal Conditions on Mercury Amount Remaining in the Oral Cavity and inside Drainage System after Removing Dental Amalgams

“…In the base plane of the mold, the teeth were placed in acrylic-cylindrical molds (15 mm of inner diameter) using self-curing resin (Ostron II, GC, Tokyo, Japan), and the height of the tooth, the distance between the occlusal plane and the base plane of the mold, was set to 25 mm. A 2-mm depth of cross-shaped cavity ( Figure 1 ) was prepared in the center of the tooth using a cavity duplication machine (prototype device, Tokyo Giken, Tokyo, Japan) [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ] with a diamond point (123, Horico Dental, Berlin, Germany). Then, dentin undercuts were prepared using an inverted cone bur (653-002, Tokyo Dental Industrial, Tokyo, Japan).…”

Microscopic Inspection of the Adhesive Interface of Composite Onlays after Cementation on Low Loading: An In Vitro Study

“…The cementation of onlay restorations over tooth structures is currently performed by using traditional resin-matrix cements [ 6 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. The polymeric matrix of resin-matrix cements is resultant from a cross-linking of methacrylate-based monomers (at around 22–60 wt%), such as urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), bisphenol-A- diglycidylmethacrylate (Bis-GMA), and ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA) [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ].…”

“…The chair-side cementation procedures involve an intrinsic technique sensitivity leading to an irregular layer of the luting material [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. In fact, the viscosity and thickness layer of the interface cement material are the major issues since a minimum resin-matrix cement layer at micro-scale dimension is clinically recommended.…”

“…In fact, the viscosity and thickness layer of the interface cement material are the major issues since a minimum resin-matrix cement layer at micro-scale dimension is clinically recommended. Viscosity and thickness of the interface cement material can be influenced by various elements, such as polymeric matrix, inorganic particles, fitting, and degree of conversion of the organic matrix [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. The layer thickness of the luting material enhances the restoration seating, mechanical performance, and decreases the microleakage and degradation at the restorative margins [ 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 28 ].…”