Surface pretreatment may influence adaptation and mechanical performance in repaired 3D-printed restorations. This in vitro study evaluated six protocols for interfacial gap volume and shear bond strength (SBS) and examined their association. Seventy-two Ceramic Crown specimens were randomly allocated to an adhesive-assisted control or protocols involving air abrasion, a silane-containing primer, and hydrofluoric acid etching, alone or combined (n = 12). After standardized adhesive application and composite repair, interfacial gap volume was quantified by micro-computed tomography, followed by SBS testing of the same specimens. Both outcomes were analyzed using log-transformed one-way analysis of variance, and Spearman correlation was used to assess their association. No significant group effect was detected for interfacial gap volume (p = 0.222) or SBS (p = 0.074). Interfacial gap volume was not significantly correlated with SBS (ρ = 0.125; 95% CI, −0.085 to 0.327; p = 0.294). Failure-mode distributions differed significantly among the surface pretreatment groups (p = 0.0027). Following short-term water storage without additional artificial aging, no pretreatment protocol demonstrated a statistically significant advantage for either outcome in the primary six-group comparisons; these findings cannot be directly extrapolated to repair after prolonged clinical service.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çimen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: