Comparison between bond strengths of a resin cement on traditional prosthetic substrates and a 3D-printed resin for permanent restorations

Recently, 3D-printed resins have been introduced as materials for definitive indirect restorations. Herein, a comparative assessment of the bond strengths of 3D-printed resins to a resin cement was performed. Methods: four definitive restorative materials were selected, i.e., a Feldspar ceramic (VITA Mark II, VM), a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (VITA Enamic, VE), a nanohybrid resin composite (Grandio Bloc, GB), and one 3D-printed resin (Crown Permanent, CP). VM and VE were etched and silanized, GB was sandblasted, and CP was glass bead blasted; for one further experimental group, this was followed by sandblasting (CPs). A resin cement (RelyX Unicem) was then used for bonding, and then a notched shear bond strength test (nSBS) was performed. Failure modes were observed and classified as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed, and SEM representative images were taken. Data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA, Tukey, and Chi-square tests. Significant differences were detected in nSBS among materials (p < 0.001). The highest nSBS was found in VM (30.3 ± 1.8 MPa) a, followed by CP^b, GB^bc, CP^bc, and VE^c. Failure modes were significantly different (p < 0.001), and with different prevalent failure modes. The bond strength for 3D-printed permanent resin materials was shown to be lower than that of the felspathic ceramic but comparable to that of the resin block and PICN substrates.