Comparison of Different Temporary Crown Materials’ Shear Bond Strength Values

Objective & Hypothesis:The goal of this study is to examine the shear bond strength of several temporary crown materials. 24 samples of Structur CAD and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) temporary crown materials were utilized in the study.

📊

Key Findings & Data:The surfaces of the Structur CAD group samples were etched for 30 seconds with 35 percent gel phosphoric acid, while the polymethyl methacrylate group samples were abraded for 10 seconds with a 30 m ultrafine diamond bur in the same direction.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, the mean shear bond strength achieved with Structur CAD material was found to be within clinically acceptable limits.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:24 samples

⚙️Variables:CAD/CAM · geçici kron materyali · bağlanma dayanımı

Abstract

The goal of this study is to examine the shear bond strength of several temporary crown materials. 24 samples of Structur CAD and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) temporary crown materials were utilized in the study. The surfaces of the Structur CAD group samples were etched for 30 seconds with 35 percent gel phosphoric acid, while the polymethyl methacrylate group samples were abraded for 10 seconds with a 30 m ultrafine diamond bur in the same direction. In both groups, 0.018 slot metal brackets were bonded to the samples. The samples were tested in a universal testing device for shear bond strength (Shear Bond Tester). For statistical analysis, the Mann Whitney-U test was used. Structur CAD material had a mean bond strength of 7.45 megapascals, while PMMA material had a mean bond strength of 3.14 megapascals. The shear bond strength of the Structur CAD material was found to be higher than that of the PMMA-containing material, and the difference was statistically significant. Furthermore, the mean shear bond strength achieved with Structur CAD material was found to be within clinically acceptable limits.

Özet

Bu çalışmada farklı geçici kron materyallerinin makaslama bağlanma dayanımı değerlerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırmada Structur CAD ve polimetil metakrilat (PMMA) geçici kron materyallerinden üretilen 24 adet numune kullanılmıştır. Structur CAD grubu numuneleri yüzeyleri %35’lik jel fosforik asitle 30 sn pürüzlendirilmiş, polimetil metakrilat grubu ise 30 μm ultrafine elmas frezle aynı doğrultuda olacak şekilde 10 sn pürüzlendirilmiştir. Her iki gruptaki numunelere 0,018 slot metal braketler yapıştırılmıştır. Makaslama bağlanma dayanımı kuvvetleri testi için numuneler universal test cihazında (Shear Bond Tester) değerlendirilmiştir. İstatistiksel analiz için Mann Whitney-U testi kullanılmıştır. Structur CAD materyalinin bağlanma dayanımı ortalaması 7,45 megapaskal ve PMMA materyalinin bağlanma dayanımı ortalaması ise 3,14 megapaskal olarak gözlenmiştir. Structur CAD materyalinde gözlenen bağlanma dayanımı değeri PMMA içerikli materyale göre yüksek bulunmuş ve bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca Structur CAD materyali ile elde edilen ortalama bağlanma dayanımı değeri klinik olarak kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

CAD/CAM geçici kron materyali bağlanma dayanımı shear bond strength temporary crown material

🔖

Cite This Article

TUNCA, Y., KOTAN, S., FAHRZADEH, N., TUNCA, M., DEĞİRMENCİ, B. Ü., YALÇIN, D. K. (2022). Comparison of Different Temporary Crown Materials’ Shear Bond Strength Values. Van Diş Hekimliği Dergisi, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 12–19. https://ajindex.com/articles/978539

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

Gökalp S, Doğan GB, Tekçı̇ çek M, Berberoğlu A, Ünlüer Ş. Erişkin ve yaşlılarda ağız-diş sağlığı profili Türkiye-2004. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg. 2007;31(4):11-8
Chow L, Goonewardene MS, Cook R, Firth MJ. Adult orthodontic retreatment: A survey of patient profiles and original treatment failings. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2020;158(3):371-82
Burns DR, Beck DA Nelson SK, Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(5):474-97
Heithersay GS. Combined endodonticorthodontic treatment of transverse root fractures in the region of the alveolar crest. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1973;36(3):404-15
Al Jabbari YS, Al Taweel SM, Al Rifaiy M, Alqahtani MQ, Koutsoukis T, Zinelis S. Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):649-55
Richardson G, Russell KA. Congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors and orthodontic treatment considerations for the single-tooth implant. J Can Dent Assoc. 2001;67(1):25-8
Blakey R, Mah J. Effects of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138(1):72-8
Balkenhol M, Knapp M, Ferger P, Heun U, Wöstmann B. Correlation between polymerization shrinkage and marginal fit of temporary crowns. Dent Mater. 2008;24(11):1575-84
Zarif Najafi H, Moradi M, Torkan S. Effect of different surface treatment methods on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to temporary crowns. Int Orthod. 2019;17(1):89- 95
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 1997
Abdullah AO, Tsıtrou EA, Pollıngton S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016;24(3):258-63
Chay SH, Wong SL, Mohamed N, Chia A, Yap AUJ. Effects of surface treatment and aging on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to provisional materials. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(5): 577.e7-11
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Larson B, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018
Reynolds IR. A Review