IADR Abstract Archives
Shear Bond Strength of Several Dental Cements
Objectives: Compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of various cements when bonded to zirconia, e.max crowns, titanium, stainless steel, and dentin.
Methods: Products tested were: Group 1: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE Cement without DenTASTIC™ UNO™ (Pulpdent), Group 2: Rely X™ Unicem 2 Automix (3M), Group 3: Ceramir® Crown & Bridge (Doxa), Group 4: FujiCEM™ 2 Cement (GC America), and Group 5: ACTIVA BioACTIVE Cement with DenTASTIC UNO (Pulpdent). Group 1-4 (n=25) and Group 5 (n=5) was not tested against the other four substrates. The fifth group of dentin samples were mounted in acrylic resin with the long axis of the tooth perpendicular to the surface and flatten to expose dentin using 240 grit silicon paper. Each cement was bonded using cylindrical molds, with internal diameter of 2.38 mm and height of 2mm, to the substrates according to manufacturer’s instructions. All samples were cured (Translux® Wave, Heraeus Kulzer) and placed in water at 37°C for 24 hours. A universal testing machine (Instron® 5566A, Norwood, MA) was used to test the SBS with 1mm/minute crosshead speed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for all the substrates except for dentin (one-way ANOVA).
Results: The difference between products was statistically significant for each substrate, see Table 1. Group 1 compared to Group 2 showed statistical significance for e.max and dentin. Group 1 compared to Groups 3 and 4 showed statistical significance for all substrates. Group 2 compared to Groups 3 and 4 showed statistical significance for all substrates except dentin. Groups 3 and 4 did not show any statistical significance other than e.max.
Conclusions: Substrate dentin, the comparison between Groups 1 and 5 did not show any significant difference; however both of these products compared to the other three showed significant differences. For the other substrates, Group 2 showed the highest compressive stress, followed by groups 1, 4, and 3 respectively.
Methods: Products tested were: Group 1: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE Cement without DenTASTIC™ UNO™ (Pulpdent), Group 2: Rely X™ Unicem 2 Automix (3M), Group 3: Ceramir® Crown & Bridge (Doxa), Group 4: FujiCEM™ 2 Cement (GC America), and Group 5: ACTIVA BioACTIVE Cement with DenTASTIC UNO (Pulpdent). Group 1-4 (n=25) and Group 5 (n=5) was not tested against the other four substrates. The fifth group of dentin samples were mounted in acrylic resin with the long axis of the tooth perpendicular to the surface and flatten to expose dentin using 240 grit silicon paper. Each cement was bonded using cylindrical molds, with internal diameter of 2.38 mm and height of 2mm, to the substrates according to manufacturer’s instructions. All samples were cured (Translux® Wave, Heraeus Kulzer) and placed in water at 37°C for 24 hours. A universal testing machine (Instron® 5566A, Norwood, MA) was used to test the SBS with 1mm/minute crosshead speed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for all the substrates except for dentin (one-way ANOVA).
Results: The difference between products was statistically significant for each substrate, see Table 1. Group 1 compared to Group 2 showed statistical significance for e.max and dentin. Group 1 compared to Groups 3 and 4 showed statistical significance for all substrates. Group 2 compared to Groups 3 and 4 showed statistical significance for all substrates except dentin. Groups 3 and 4 did not show any statistical significance other than e.max.
Conclusions: Substrate dentin, the comparison between Groups 1 and 5 did not show any significant difference; however both of these products compared to the other three showed significant differences. For the other substrates, Group 2 showed the highest compressive stress, followed by groups 1, 4, and 3 respectively.
IMAGES
2397645_File000000.jpg
2397645_File000000.jpg