Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2026
In vitro comparison of resin cement bond strength to milled and 3D-printed resins.
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.
Tupper Jason, Tantbirojn Daranee, Hollis Wainscott, Gullard Angela, Jain Vinay, Versluis Antheunis
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Contemporary minimally invasive strategies for fixed rehabilitation emphasize tooth structure preservation, with secure adhesion between thin restorations and resin cement vital to avoid failure. This study compares bond strengths of a common resin cement to 4 modern milling and 3D-printing resin-based restorative materials, with conventional lithium disilicate as control.
METHODS: Rectangular beams (12.5 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) were pressed (EMX: IPS e.Max Press), milled (TET: Tetric CAD; LAV: Lava Ultimate), or 3D-printed (PRO: Straumann P Pro Crown&Bridge; SPR: SprintRay Ceramic Crown). After surface-treatment following manufacturer's recommendations and application of universal adhesive, including on the lithium disilicate control, beams were cemented with RelyX Universal, forming 25 mm-long specimens. Specimens (n = 15) were subjected to a 4-point bend test after 24 h or artificial-aging with thermocycling. Bond strengths were calculated and statistically analyzed using ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Three of the 4 resins demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths (82-84 MPa) than the control (50 MPa); PRO was not significantly different (67 MPa). Aging significantly reduced the cement bond strength to the 2 milled materials (TET, LAV). Although the bond strength of PRO 3D-printed material did not significantly decrease following artificial aging, the majority of these specimens succumbed to cohesive failure. After thermocycling, additional tests using monolithic PRO beams confirmed a significant decrease in cohesive strength.
CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength between resin cement and modern milled and 3D-printed resins were generally higher than the lithium disilicate control. Artificial aging tended to decrease bond strengths, except for SPR. Cohesive strength of PRO 3D-printed resin was significantly lower after artificial aging.
METHODS: Rectangular beams (12.5 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) were pressed (EMX: IPS e.Max Press), milled (TET: Tetric CAD; LAV: Lava Ultimate), or 3D-printed (PRO: Straumann P Pro Crown&Bridge; SPR: SprintRay Ceramic Crown). After surface-treatment following manufacturer's recommendations and application of universal adhesive, including on the lithium disilicate control, beams were cemented with RelyX Universal, forming 25 mm-long specimens. Specimens (n = 15) were subjected to a 4-point bend test after 24 h or artificial-aging with thermocycling. Bond strengths were calculated and statistically analyzed using ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Three of the 4 resins demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths (82-84 MPa) than the control (50 MPa); PRO was not significantly different (67 MPa). Aging significantly reduced the cement bond strength to the 2 milled materials (TET, LAV). Although the bond strength of PRO 3D-printed material did not significantly decrease following artificial aging, the majority of these specimens succumbed to cohesive failure. After thermocycling, additional tests using monolithic PRO beams confirmed a significant decrease in cohesive strength.
CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength between resin cement and modern milled and 3D-printed resins were generally higher than the lithium disilicate control. Artificial aging tended to decrease bond strengths, except for SPR. Cohesive strength of PRO 3D-printed resin was significantly lower after artificial aging.