Methods: Out of 140 human molars, ground to expose a flat dentin surface, 40 specimens were each treated with a eugenol-free temporary cement (Temp bond NE, Kerr, Scafati (SA), Italy) and with a eugenol temporary cement (Temp bond, Kerr, Scafati (SA), Italy). 60 specimens were used for control. After storage of the cement-treated specimens in distilled water for 7 days at 37°C, the cement was removed by sandblasting or excavator; the control-group received sandblasting, excavator-application or no treatment. On each surface of the mentioned groups ceramic specimens (Cerafil, Komet, Lemgo, Germany) were placed either with a self-etching primer system (Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan) or with a total etch bonding system (Excite – Variolink II, Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). After storage of all specimens in distilled water for 24 hours, shear bond strengths were determined at a cross head speed of 0.75 mm/min. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Results: For each adhesive system, neither the application and the type of temporary cement, nor the method of removal had a significant influence on the shear bond strength (p £ 0.05). The total-etch system showed a significantly higher bond strength (26.6 to 31.6 MPa) than the self-etching primer system (8.6 to 12.9 MPa) within all groups.
Conclusion: Temporary cements (with and without eugenol) do not influence the shear bond strength of ceramic luted to dentin, using the tested adhesive systems, but the type of luting system does.