Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
A comparison of two different methods and materials used to repair polycarbonate crowns
1Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Atatürk, Erzurum, Turkey. yyilmaz25@atauni.edu.tr
Aim:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength and crown-repair material interface of polycarbonate crown repaired using flowable resin composite and hybrid resin composite following two different surface preparations.
Methods And Materials:
The facial surfaces of fifty-two polycarbonate crowns were flattened and roughened. Specimens were then divided into four test groups. A bonding agent alone (Groups 1 and 2) or a combination of methylmethacrylate (MMA) + bonding agent (Groups 3 and 4) was applied to the prepared surfaces. Then either a flowable (Groups 1 and 3) or a microfilled hybrid (Groups 2 and 4) resin composite was placed on the surfaces. Forty-eight of the original fifty-two specimens were used for shear bond strength testing. Failure types (adhesive, cohesive, and mixed) were evaluated. The remaining four specimens, one from each group, were used for crown-resin composite interface analysis using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results:
There were significant differences in both mean shear bond strength values and failure types (P<0.05). The SEM evaluation revealed a close interface relationship in Groups 3 and 4.
Conclusion:
MMA monomer application on a polycarbonate crown prior to application of an adhesive agent improved the shear bond strength of the repair material.
