IADR Abstract Archives
Shear Bond Strengths of RMGI Luting Cements to Indirect Restorations
Objectives: To evaluate shear bond strengths (SBS) of three resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) to various core materials for indirect restorations.
Methods: Various core materials used for indirect restorations were embedded into 120 acrylic molds. Specimens were divided into 8 groups as listed in Table 1. Grouping was done based on the type of core material and adhesive system used prior to bonding. All specimens were polished with a silicon carbide paper of 600 grit size. Each group was randomly subdivided and bonded to three RMGICs including Riva Cem Automix (SDI, Australia) (Riva Cem), FujiCEM 2 (GC) (FujiCEM), and RelyX™ Luting Plus Automix (3M ESPE) (RelyX) (n=5 per group). Bonding was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. SBS in megapascals was tested using a universal testing machine (Instron 5942) with a 1K load cell and 0.75/min cross-head speed. Comparisons were conducted via one-way ANOVA, Welch’s ANOVA, or the Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on the statistical assumptions of homogeneity of variances and normality. SPSS version 25 was used in the analysis.
Results: Means, standard deviations, and p-values are reported in Table 1. For noble metal Argenco 68, Riva Cem demonstrated significantly higher SBS compared to RelyX and FujiCEM. When IPS e.max® CAD was conditioned with Monobond® Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent), FujiCEM had significantly higher SBS than the other RMGICs. For Lava Zirconia, all the cements demonstrated a lower SBS when used with Monobond® Plus as compared to Zipbond Universal (SDI, Australia) or when no adhesive was applied.
Conclusions: Riva Cem with Argenco 68 and FujiCEM with IPS e.max® CAD (conditioned with Monobond® Plus) appear to be preferable RMGICs when analyzing SBS.
Methods: Various core materials used for indirect restorations were embedded into 120 acrylic molds. Specimens were divided into 8 groups as listed in Table 1. Grouping was done based on the type of core material and adhesive system used prior to bonding. All specimens were polished with a silicon carbide paper of 600 grit size. Each group was randomly subdivided and bonded to three RMGICs including Riva Cem Automix (SDI, Australia) (Riva Cem), FujiCEM 2 (GC) (FujiCEM), and RelyX™ Luting Plus Automix (3M ESPE) (RelyX) (n=5 per group). Bonding was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. SBS in megapascals was tested using a universal testing machine (Instron 5942) with a 1K load cell and 0.75/min cross-head speed. Comparisons were conducted via one-way ANOVA, Welch’s ANOVA, or the Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on the statistical assumptions of homogeneity of variances and normality. SPSS version 25 was used in the analysis.
Results: Means, standard deviations, and p-values are reported in Table 1. For noble metal Argenco 68, Riva Cem demonstrated significantly higher SBS compared to RelyX and FujiCEM. When IPS e.max® CAD was conditioned with Monobond® Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent), FujiCEM had significantly higher SBS than the other RMGICs. For Lava Zirconia, all the cements demonstrated a lower SBS when used with Monobond® Plus as compared to Zipbond Universal (SDI, Australia) or when no adhesive was applied.
Conclusions: Riva Cem with Argenco 68 and FujiCEM with IPS e.max® CAD (conditioned with Monobond® Plus) appear to be preferable RMGICs when analyzing SBS.
3170182_File000000.jpg