Shear Bond Strength of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured CAD/CAM Restorative Materials After Different Surface Treatments and Adhesive Strategies: An In Vitro Study

This study aims to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on the shear bond strength (SBS) of additively manufactured (AM) and subtractively manufactured (SM) restorative materials. A total 675 rectangular specimens of three AM (Saremco Crowntec/SC, VarseoSmile CrownPlus/VC, and VarseoSmile TriniQ/VT) and two SM (Vita Enamic/VE and Cerasmart/CS) restorative materials were fabricated. Each material was randomly divided into three groups regarding surface treatments: control/C, sandblasting/S, and etching/E. Following surface treatments, each AM and SM restorative material was then divided into three subgroups (15 specimens/subgroup) on the basis of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and universal). All specimens were thermocycled at 10,000 cycles, 5-55 °C, 30 s dwell time, and tested under SBS until failure, and failure types were examined under a stereomicroscope. Representative specimens were examined by SEM to evaluate fracture morphology. Statistical analysis was set at <i>p</i> < 0.05. There were significant differences in bond strength according to the material, surface treatment, adhesives, and their interactions (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The highest SBS value was obtained with SC × sandblasting × etch-and-rinse (16.45 ± 0.93 MPa), while the lowest value was found in the CS × control × universal interaction (4.68 ± 1.1 MPa). Outcomes varied according to the materials, surface treatment, and adhesive strategy. Clinically, these findings indicate that SM materials may require various surface treatment to achieve reliable adhesion, whereas AM materials provide more similar bond strength performance with no surface treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Polymers
Published
2026-01-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020296
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Shear Bond Strength of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured CAD/CAM Restorative Materials After Different Surface Treatments and Adhesive Strategies: An In Vitro Study

Ömer SAĞSÖZ, Ayşe Tuğba Ertürk-Avunduk, Ebru Delikan, Özcan Karataş et al.
Polymers
Dental materials and restorations
article

Shear Bond Strength of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured CAD/CAM Restorative Materials After Different Surface Treatments and Adhesive Strategies: An In Vitro Study

Ömer SAĞSÖZ, Ayşe Tuğba Ertürk-Avunduk, Ebru Delikan, Özcan Karataş, SEVİM ATILAN YAVUZ
article en

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on the shear bond strength (SBS) of additively manufactured (AM) and subtractively manufactured (SM) restorative materials. A total 675 rectangular specimens of three AM (Saremco Crowntec/SC, VarseoSmile CrownPlus/VC, and VarseoSmile TriniQ/VT) and two SM (Vita Enamic/VE and Cerasmart/CS) restorative materials were fabricated. Each material was randomly divided into three groups regarding surface treatments: control/C, sandblasting/S, and etching/E. Following surface treatments, each AM and SM restorative material was then divided into three subgroups (15 specimens/subgroup) on the basis of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and universal). All specimens were thermocycled at 10,000 cycles, 5-55 °C, 30 s dwell time, and tested under SBS until failure, and failure types were examined under a stereomicroscope. Representative specimens were examined by SEM to evaluate fracture morphology. Statistical analysis was set at <i>p</i> < 0.05. There were significant differences in bond strength according to the material, surface treatment, adhesives, and their interactions (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The highest SBS value was obtained with SC × sandblasting × etch-and-rinse (16.45 ± 0.93 MPa), while the lowest value was found in the CS × control × universal interaction (4.68 ± 1.1 MPa). Outcomes varied according to the materials, surface treatment, and adhesive strategy. Clinically, these findings indicate that SM materials may require various surface treatment to achieve reliable adhesion, whereas AM materials provide more similar bond strength performance with no surface treatment.

PolymersVol. 18(2)
Nuh Naci Yazgan University (TR), Mersin Üniversitesi (TR), Atatürk University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.