Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(03): 456-461
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713309
Original Article

Interfacial Fracture Toughness Comparison of Three Indirect Resin Composites to Dentin and Polyether Ether Ketone Polymer

Rayhaneh Khalesi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ahwaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahwaz, Iran
,
Mahdi Abbasi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Zahra Shahidi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Masoumeh Hasani Tabatabaei
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Zohreh Moradi
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was part of a M.S. thesis supported by Tehran University of Medical Science (TUMS); Grant no. 95-04-69-33541.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Advances in laboratory composites and their high wear resistance and fracture toughness have resulted in their growing popularity and increasing use for dental restorations. This study sought to assess the fracture toughness of three indirect composites bonded to dental substrate and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymer.

Materials and Methods This in vitro study was conducted on two groups of dental and polymer substrates. Each substrate was bonded to three indirect composite resins. Sixty blocks (3 × 3 × 12 mm) were made of sound bovine anterior teeth and PEEK polymer. Sixty blocks (3 × 3 × 12 mm) were fabricated of CRIOS (Coltene, Germany), high impact polymer composite (HIPC; Bredent, Germany), and GRADIA (Indirect; GC, Japan) composite resins. Composites were bonded to dentin using Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray, Japan). For bonding to PEEK, Combo.lign (Bredent) and Visio.Link (Bredent) luting cements were used. In all samples, a single-edge notch was created by a no. 11 surgical blade at the interface. The samples were subjected to 3,500 thermal cycles, and their fracture toughness was measured in a universal testing machine (Zwick/Roell, Germany) by application of four-point flexural load.

Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, Kruskal–Wallis.

Results The fracture toughness of CRIOS–PEEK interface was significantly higher than HIPC–PEEK. The fracture toughness of GRADIA–PEEK was not significantly different from that of HIPC and CRIOS. The fracture toughness of GRADIA–dentin was significantly higher than HIPC–dentin.

Conclusion Considering the limitations of this study, GRADIA has the highest bond strength to dentin, while CRIOS shows the highest bond strength to PEEK.

Keywords

composite resin - fracture strength - polyether ether ketone


Publication History

Article published online:
09 July 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H. et al. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength–evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994; 10 (04) 236-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tam LE, McComb D. Shear bond strengths of resin luting cements to laboratory-made composite resin veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66 (03) 314-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 2003; 19 (07) 575-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Perdigão J, Sezinando A, Muñoz MA, Luque-Martinez IV, Loguercio AD. Prefabricated veneers - bond strengths and ultramorphological analyses. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16 (02) 137-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Oper Dent 2013; 38 (02) E1-E11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wendt Jr SL. The effect of heat used as secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. II. Wear, hardness, and color stability. Quintessence Int 1987; 18 (05) 351-356
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nguyen JF, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (05) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zorba YO, Ilday NO, Bayındır YZ, Demirbuga S. Comparing the shear bond strength of direct and indirect composite inlays in relation to different surface conditioning and curing techniques. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (04) 436-441
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Munck J, Poitevin A, Lührs AK. et al. Interfacial fracture toughness of aged adhesive-dentin interfaces. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (04) 462-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 De Munck J, Luehrs AK, Poitevin A, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B. Fracture toughness versus micro-tensile bond strength testing of adhesive-dentin interfaces. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (06) 635-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Moharamzadeh K, Hooshmand T, Keshvad A, Van Noort R. Fracture toughness of a ceramic-resin interface. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (02) 172-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kern M, Lehmann F. Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketon (PEEK). Dent Mater 2012; 28 (12) 1280-1283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Sereno N, Kolbeck C. Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (03) 739-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Taufall S, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B. Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20 (09) 2493-2500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stawarczyk B, Jordan P, Schmidlin PR. et al. PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (05) 1278-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Barabanti N, Gagliani M, Roulet JF, Testori T, Özcan M, Cerutti A. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial. J Dent 2013; 41 (05) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27 (02) 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82 (04) 391-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Barabanti N, Preti A, Vano M, Derchi G, Mangani F, Cerutti A. Indirect composite restorations luted with two different procedures: a ten years follow up clinical trial. J Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7 (01) e54-e59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res 1983; 62 (10) 1076-1081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schilke R, Lisson JA, Bauss O, Geurtsen W. Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol 2000; 45 (05) 355-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lin L, Drummond JL. Cyclic loading of notched dental composite specimens. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (03) 207-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ornaghi BP, Meier MM, Lohbauer U, Braga RR. Fracture toughness and cyclic fatigue resistance of resin composites with different filler size distributions. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (07) 742-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fuentes MV, Ceballos L, González-López S. Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to different treated indirect composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17 (03) 717-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Beuer F, Roos M, Schmidlin PR. Tensile bond strength of veneering resins to PEEK: impact of different adhesives. Dent Mater J 2013; 32 (03) 441-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Caglar I, Ates SM, Yesil Duymus Z. An in vitro evaluation of the effect of various adhesives and surface treatments on bond strength of resin cement to polyetheretherketone. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (01) e342-e349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar