Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791979
The Effect of Repair Materials and Surface Treatments on the Shear Bond Strength of 3D-Printed Provisional Restoration

Abstract
Objective Despite the emergence of numerous three-dimensional (3D) printed provisional resin, there are no conclusive guidelines for repairing them. This study aims to investigate the effects of different repair materials and surface treatments on the shear bond strength of 3D-printed provisional resin.
Materials and Methods A total of 180 3D-printed resin specimens underwent six surface treatments: no surface treatment (control), silicon carbide paper (SP), sandblasting with aluminum oxide (SB), SP followed by SB (SP + SB), SP with bonding agent (SP + BD), and SB with bonding agent (SB + BD). Each group was repaired with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Bis-acryl, and flowable composite resin (FCR). The shear bond strength of the bonded specimens was tested using a universal testing machine and the mode of failure was examined with stereomicroscope.
Statistical Analysis The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess normal distribution, and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; α = 0.05) was used to find the effect of independent variables on the shear bond strength. The post hoc test was achieved using the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test.
Results Two-way ANOVA indicated a statistically significant interaction between repair materials and surface treatments in relation to the shear bond strength of 3D-printed resin (p < 0.001). The three highest shear bond strengths overall were SB repaired with Bis-acryl (17.30 ± 0.77 MPa), SB + BD repaired with FCR (17.20 ± 0.29 MPa), and SB + BD repaired with PMMA (16.60 ± 0.71 MPa), which were significantly higher than their control group (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between these groups. Notably the lowest shear bond strength in PMMA occurred in the control group (8.49 ± 0.42 MPa), while the lowest shear bond strength in Bis-acryl and FCR was observed in the SP group (7.28 ± 0.71 and 8.84 ± 1.15 MPa, respectively).
Conclusion Repair materials and surface treatments play an important role in repairing 3D-printed resin. PMMA and composite resin–based repair materials require both sandblast and a chemical bonding agent, while Bis-acryl-based repair materials only need sandblasting to improve the shear bond strength.
Publication History
Article published online:
12 March 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Schweiger J, Edelhoff D, Güth JF. 3D printing in digital prosthetic dentistry: An overview of recent developments in additive manufacturing. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (09) 2010
- 2 Dawood A, Marti Goth B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J 2015; 219 (11) 521-529
- 3 Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D printing in dentistry: state of the art. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (01) 30-40
- 4 Revilla-León M, Meyers MJ, Zandinejad A, Özcan M. A review on chemical composition, mechanical properties, and manufacturing work flow of additively manufactured current polymers for interim dental restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019; 31 (01) 51-57
- 5 Patras M, Naka O, Doukoudakis S, Pissiotis A. Management of provisional restorations' deficiencies: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012; 24 (01) 26-38
- 6 Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP. et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (02) 192-200
- 7 Jain S, Sayed ME, Shetty M. et al. Physical and mechanical properties of 3d-printed provisional crowns and fixed dental prosthesis resins compared to CAD/CAM milled and conventional provisional resins: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 14 (13) 2691
- 8 Parikh V, Cheng DH, Linsley C, Shah KC. Bond strength of three chairside crown reline materials to milled polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (03) 544.e1-544.e8
- 9 Lim NK, Shin SY. Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins. J Adv Prosthodont 2020; 12 (05) 322-328
- 10 Jeong KW, Kim SH. Influence of surface treatments and repair materials on the shear bond strength of CAD/CAM provisional restorations. J Adv Prosthodont 2019; 11 (02) 95-104
- 11 Albahri R, Yoon HI, Lee JD, Yoon S, Lee SJ. Shear bond strength of provisional repair materials bonded to 3D printed resin. J Dent Sci 2021; 16 (01) 261-267
- 12 Palavicini J, Quin SL, Zakkour W. et al. Bond strength of reline materials to 3D-printed provisional crown resins. Polymers (Basel) 2023; 15 (18) 3745
- 13 GC America Inc. Safety Data Sheet acc. to OSHA HCS 29 CFR 1910.1200. 2015 . Accessed December 20, 2023 at: https://www.gc.dental/america/products/operatory/temporary-restorative-systems/unifast-trad
- 14 Schwantz JK, Oliveira-Ogliari A, Meereis CT, Leal FB, Ogliari FA, Moraes RR. Characterization of bis-acryl composite resins for provisional restorations. Braz Dent J 2017; 28 (03) 354-361
- 15 3M. 3M™ Filtek™ Supreme Flowable Restorative Technical data sheet. 2020 . Accessed December 20, 2023 at: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b5005163004/
- 16 Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77 (02) 122-126
- 17 Ha SR, Kim SH, Lee JB, Han JS, Yeo IS. Improving shear bond strength of temporary crown and fixed dental prosthesis resins by surface treatments. J Mater Sci 2016; 51 (01) 1463-1475
- 18 Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R. Wetting the repair surface with methyl methacrylate affects the transverse strength of repaired heat-polymerized resin. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72 (06) 639-643
- 19 Boyer DB, Chan KC, Reinhardt JW. Build-up and repair of light-cured composites: bond strength. J Dent Res 1984; 63 (10) 1241-1244
- 20 Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez de Mondelo JM. The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (05) 481-488
- 21 Revilla-León M, Morillo JA, Att W, Özcan M. Chemical composition, knoop hardness, surface roughness, and adhesion aspects of additively manufactured dental interim materials. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (08) 698-705
- 22 Matinlinna JP, Lung CYK, Tsoi JKH. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: a review. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (01) 13-28
- 23 Formlabs. Instructions for use: temporary CB Resin. 2020 . Accessed December 20, 2023 at: https://dental.formlabs.com/materials/#temporary-cb-resin
- 24 Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (05) 467-477
- 25 Hegde VS, Khatavkar RA. A new dimension to conservative dentistry: air abrasion. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13 (01) 4-8