Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In vitro study reveals resin cement type significantly alters shear bond strength to 3D-printed resins, indicating silane treatment provides limited bonding benefit.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of different resin cements to three-dimensional (3D)-printed restorative resins and to investigate the effects of silane treatment and substrate type on bonding performance. Methods: Four resin cements-three self-adhesive and one adhesive-were applied to two types of 3D-printed resins: ODS Permanent Resin (OPR) and Graphy Permanent Resin (GPR). Each substrate was tested with and without silane treatment. SBS was measured, and the failure modes were classified. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to analyze surface morphology of the 3D-printed substrates. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the effects of cement type, silane application, and substrate type on SBS. Results: Resin cement type significantly influenced SBS, with Clearfil SA (Kuraray) exhibiting the lowest values, while the other cements demonstrated comparable performance. Silane treatment and substrate type did not show statistically significant effects on SBS. SEM analysis revealed smoother surfaces in OPR compared to GPR. Failure mode analysis showed predominantly cohesive failures for OPR, whereas GPR exhibited more adhesive and mixed failures. Conclusions: Resin cement selection plays a crucial role in achieving optimal bond strength to 3D-printed restorative resins. Silane application provided limited benefits for filler-deficient substrates, indicating that alternative surface treatments may be necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: