Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026
Effect of silane treatment and resin cement type on bond strength to three-dimensional printed restorative resin: an in vitro experimental study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Seul Ji, Lee Eun Hye, Kim Ryan Jin Young, Shin Joo Hee
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of different resin cements to three-dimensional (3D)-printed restorative resins and to investigate the effects of silane treatment and substrate type on bonding performance.
METHODS: Four resin cements-three self-adhesive and one adhesive-were applied to two types of 3D-printed resins: ODS Permanent Resin (OPR) and Graphy Permanent Resin (GPR). Each substrate was tested with and without silane treatment. SBS was measured, and the failure modes were classified. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to analyze surface morphology of the 3D-printed substrates. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the effects of cement type, silane application, and substrate type on SBS.
RESULTS: Resin cement type significantly influenced SBS, with Clearfil SA (Kuraray) exhibiting the lowest values, while the other cements demonstrated comparable performance. Silane treatment and substrate type did not show statistically significant effects on SBS. SEM analysis revealed smoother surfaces in OPR compared to GPR. Failure mode analysis showed predominantly cohesive failures for OPR, whereas GPR exhibited more adhesive and mixed failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Resin cement selection plays a crucial role in achieving optimal bond strength to 3D-printed restorative resins. Silane application provided limited benefits for filler-deficient substrates, indicating that alternative surface treatments may be necessary.
METHODS: Four resin cements-three self-adhesive and one adhesive-were applied to two types of 3D-printed resins: ODS Permanent Resin (OPR) and Graphy Permanent Resin (GPR). Each substrate was tested with and without silane treatment. SBS was measured, and the failure modes were classified. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to analyze surface morphology of the 3D-printed substrates. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the effects of cement type, silane application, and substrate type on SBS.
RESULTS: Resin cement type significantly influenced SBS, with Clearfil SA (Kuraray) exhibiting the lowest values, while the other cements demonstrated comparable performance. Silane treatment and substrate type did not show statistically significant effects on SBS. SEM analysis revealed smoother surfaces in OPR compared to GPR. Failure mode analysis showed predominantly cohesive failures for OPR, whereas GPR exhibited more adhesive and mixed failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Resin cement selection plays a crucial role in achieving optimal bond strength to 3D-printed restorative resins. Silane application provided limited benefits for filler-deficient substrates, indicating that alternative surface treatments may be necessary.