IADR Abstract Archives
Bonding Compatibility between 2 Different Adhesives and Dual-cured Resin Cement
Objectives: Manufacturers of resin cements recommend that clinicians use their own adhesives due to concerns about different adhesives adversely affecting the polymerization of resin cements. Using one reliable adhesive for both direct and indirect restorations could simplify inventory control and clinical consistency. The purpose of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between a dual-cure resin cement and CAD/CAM ceramics using 2 different adhesives.
Methods: Extracted human molars were sectioned horizontally 3mm above the cementoenamel junction. CAD/CAM ceramic blocks were sectioned into 4mm thick slices.
The specimens were randomly assigned to one of four adhesive groups: 1) Variolink II dual cure resin cement (VII;Ivoclar) and Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus adhesive (SMP;3M/ESPE), 2) Multilink Automix dual-cure resin cement (MA;Ivoclar) and Multilink primers (MP:Ivoclar), 3) MA and Clearfil SE bond2 adhesive (CSE2;Kuraray), 4) MA and CSE2 with light-curing after adhesive application. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, ceramic slices were bonded to the teeth.
The teeth were sectioned perpendicular to obtain rectangular microsticks of 1x1mm width. The data of µTBS testing at crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min were expressed in MPa. The fracture modes were divided 6 patterns.
The data from µTBS testing were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05).
Results: Group1 and Group2 showed the highest and lowest mean values, respectively (14.16MPa and 13.07MPa). However, there are no significant differences among the adhesive groups. Fracture modes analyses demonstrated predominantly adhesive failure at the cement-ceramic block luting interface in all groups. For group3 and 4, adhesive failure at the luting-dentin interface showed similar percentages (26.7% for group3, 20% for group4) compared to adhesive failure at luting-dentin and ceramics.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the combination of resin cements, adhesive and bonding cure mode didn’t affect significantly the bond strength of CAD/CAM restorations and dentin.
Methods: Extracted human molars were sectioned horizontally 3mm above the cementoenamel junction. CAD/CAM ceramic blocks were sectioned into 4mm thick slices.
The specimens were randomly assigned to one of four adhesive groups: 1) Variolink II dual cure resin cement (VII;Ivoclar) and Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus adhesive (SMP;3M/ESPE), 2) Multilink Automix dual-cure resin cement (MA;Ivoclar) and Multilink primers (MP:Ivoclar), 3) MA and Clearfil SE bond2 adhesive (CSE2;Kuraray), 4) MA and CSE2 with light-curing after adhesive application. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, ceramic slices were bonded to the teeth.
The teeth were sectioned perpendicular to obtain rectangular microsticks of 1x1mm width. The data of µTBS testing at crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min were expressed in MPa. The fracture modes were divided 6 patterns.
The data from µTBS testing were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05).
Results: Group1 and Group2 showed the highest and lowest mean values, respectively (14.16MPa and 13.07MPa). However, there are no significant differences among the adhesive groups. Fracture modes analyses demonstrated predominantly adhesive failure at the cement-ceramic block luting interface in all groups. For group3 and 4, adhesive failure at the luting-dentin interface showed similar percentages (26.7% for group3, 20% for group4) compared to adhesive failure at luting-dentin and ceramics.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the combination of resin cements, adhesive and bonding cure mode didn’t affect significantly the bond strength of CAD/CAM restorations and dentin.