Scholarlink

Background <p>This study tested the null hypothesis (H0) that the type of veneering material would have no effect on the shear bond strength (SBS) to multilayer glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (MLG-FRP) frameworks.</p> Methods <p>Eighty-four specimens were prepared from Trinia and Zantex CAD/CAM discs (10&#xa0;mm diameter, 1&#xa0;mm thickness) and divided into six subgroups (<i>n</i> = 14). Each subgroup was veneered with composite resin (Ceramage, CE), milled hybrid ceramic (CeraSmart, CS), or 3D-printed hybrid ceramic (VarseoSmile Crown Plus, VS). All specimens underwent thermomechanical aging (240,000 chewing cycles; 5000 thermal cycles at 5–55&#xa0;°C). SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were classified under a stereomicroscope (20×). Premature test failures (PTFs) were coded as 0&#xa0;MPa in the ITT analysis, with an additional PP analysis excluding PTFs, and data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test (α = 0.05) including Shapiro–Wilk, Levene, partial η², and Hedges g (95% CI).</p> Results <p>The null hypothesis that veneering material does not affect bond strength was rejected. Veneering material significantly affected shear bond strength (SBS) (ITT: F = 5.66, <i>p</i> = 0.005; PP: F = 4.30, <i>p</i> = 0.018), while MLG-FRP type and interaction were not significant (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). In intention-to-treat analysis (PTFs = 0&#xa0;MPa), composite resin (CE: 12.87 ± 2.66&#xa0;MPa; 95% CI: 11.88–13.86) outperformed milled (CS: 9.19 ± 6.16&#xa0;MPa) and 3D-printed hybrids (VS: 9.02 ± 4.74&#xa0;MPa). Per-protocol analysis confirmed this trend (CE: 12.87 ± 2.66 MPa &gt; CS: 12.87 ± 2.04 ≈ VS: 10.99 ± 2.25). Effect sizes were large (Hedges g up to 1.2). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed 100% survival in CE, significantly higher than CS (<i>p</i> = 0.002) and VS (<i>p</i> = 0.02), with no difference between CS and VS. Failures were mainly adhesive (&gt; 90%).</p> Conclusions <p>The choice of veneering material is a critical determinant of bond strength to MLG-FRP frameworks. Composite resin provided significantly stronger and more durable adhesion than hybrid ceramics under simulated aging, supporting its use for long-term clinical reliability.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Veneer type determines shear bond strength to CAD/CAM multilayer glass-fiber–reinforced polymer frameworks after thermomechanical aging

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月7日

查看全文
  • Habibe Öztürk Ulusoy,
  • Hasan Murat Aydoğdu,
  • İlgi Tosun

摘要

Background

This study tested the null hypothesis (H0) that the type of veneering material would have no effect on the shear bond strength (SBS) to multilayer glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (MLG-FRP) frameworks.

Methods

Eighty-four specimens were prepared from Trinia and Zantex CAD/CAM discs (10 mm diameter, 1 mm thickness) and divided into six subgroups (n = 14). Each subgroup was veneered with composite resin (Ceramage, CE), milled hybrid ceramic (CeraSmart, CS), or 3D-printed hybrid ceramic (VarseoSmile Crown Plus, VS). All specimens underwent thermomechanical aging (240,000 chewing cycles; 5000 thermal cycles at 5–55 °C). SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were classified under a stereomicroscope (20×). Premature test failures (PTFs) were coded as 0 MPa in the ITT analysis, with an additional PP analysis excluding PTFs, and data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test (α = 0.05) including Shapiro–Wilk, Levene, partial η², and Hedges g (95% CI).

Results

The null hypothesis that veneering material does not affect bond strength was rejected. Veneering material significantly affected shear bond strength (SBS) (ITT: F = 5.66, p = 0.005; PP: F = 4.30, p = 0.018), while MLG-FRP type and interaction were not significant (p > 0.05). In intention-to-treat analysis (PTFs = 0 MPa), composite resin (CE: 12.87 ± 2.66 MPa; 95% CI: 11.88–13.86) outperformed milled (CS: 9.19 ± 6.16 MPa) and 3D-printed hybrids (VS: 9.02 ± 4.74 MPa). Per-protocol analysis confirmed this trend (CE: 12.87 ± 2.66 MPa > CS: 12.87 ± 2.04 ≈ VS: 10.99 ± 2.25). Effect sizes were large (Hedges g up to 1.2). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed 100% survival in CE, significantly higher than CS (p = 0.002) and VS (p = 0.02), with no difference between CS and VS. Failures were mainly adhesive (> 90%).

Conclusions

The choice of veneering material is a critical determinant of bond strength to MLG-FRP frameworks. Composite resin provided significantly stronger and more durable adhesion than hybrid ceramics under simulated aging, supporting its use for long-term clinical reliability.