Tensile bond strength of indirect composites luted with three new self-adhesive resin cements to dentin
- PMID: 21710095
- PMCID: PMC4223788
- DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572011005000011
Tensile bond strength of indirect composites luted with three new self-adhesive resin cements to dentin
Abstract
Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate the tensile bond strengths between indirect composites and dentin of 3 recently developed self-adhesive resin cements and to determine mode of failure by SEM.
Material and methods: Exposed dentin surfaces of 70 mandibular third molars were used. Teeth were randomly divided into 7 groups: Group 1 (control group): direct composite resin restoration (Alert) with etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Bond 1 primer/adhesive), Group 2: indirect composite restoration (Estenia) luted with a resin cement (Cement-It) combined with the same etch-and-rinse adhesive, Group 3: direct composite resin restoration with self-etch adhesive system (Nano-Bond), Group 4: indirect composite restoration luted with the resin cement combined with the same self-etch adhesive, Groups 5-7: indirect composite restoration luted with self-adhesive resin cements (RelyX Unicem, Maxcem, and Embrace WetBond, respectively) onto the non-pretreated dentin surfaces. Tensile bond strengths of groups were tested with a universal testing machine at a constant speed of 1 mm/min using a 50 kgf load cell. Results were statistically analyzed by the Student's t-test. The failure modes of all groups were also evaluated.
Results: The indirect composite restorations luted with the self-adhesive resin cements (groups 5-7) showed better results compared to the other groups (p<0.05). Group 4 showed the weakest bond strength (p>0.05). The surfaces of all debonded specimens showed evidence of both adhesive and cohesive failure.
Conclusion: The new universal self-adhesive resins may be considered an alternative for luting indirect composite restorations onto non-pretreated dentin surfaces.
Similar articles
-
Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of etch-and-rinse and self-adhesive resin cements to dentin.J Prosthodont. 2012 Feb;21(2):101-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00794.x. Epub 2011 Nov 1. J Prosthodont. 2012. PMID: 22044733
-
Effect of adhesive resin cements on bond strength of ceramic core materials to dentin.Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 Mar;21(3):367-374. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_10_17. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018. PMID: 29519988
-
The influence of luting systems on the microtensile bond strength of dentin to indirect resin-based composite and ceramic restorations.Oper Dent. 2009 May-Jun;34(3):328-36. doi: 10.2341/08-101. Oper Dent. 2009. PMID: 19544823
-
A scoping review of the influence of clinical contaminants on bond strength in direct adhesive restorative procedures.J Dent. 2024 Jun;145:104985. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104985. Epub 2024 Apr 3. J Dent. 2024. PMID: 38574846
-
Is Conventional Resin Cement Adhesive Performance to Dentin Better Than Self-adhesive? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laboratory Studies.Oper Dent. 2020 Sep 1;45(5):484-495. doi: 10.2341/19-153-L. Oper Dent. 2020. PMID: 32101496
Cited by
-
Effect of Laser Treatment on Surface Morphology of Indirect Composite Resin: Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Evaluation.J Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Spring;4(2):92-5. J Lasers Med Sci. 2013. PMID: 25606314 Free PMC article.
-
A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques.Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Feb;24(2):1053-1063. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02999-6. Epub 2019 Jul 9. Clin Oral Investig. 2020. PMID: 31290018 Clinical Trial.
-
Fracture resistance of lab composite versus all-ceramic restorations in class II inlay cavity preparations: An in vitro study.J Conserv Dent. 2022 May-Jun;25(3):258-263. doi: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_261_21. Epub 2022 Jun 13. J Conserv Dent. 2022. PMID: 35836565 Free PMC article.
-
Fracture Resistance of Laboratory Composite Versus All-Ceramic Restorations in Class II Inlay Cavity Preparations: An In Vitro Study.Cureus. 2023 Sep 5;15(9):e44711. doi: 10.7759/cureus.44711. eCollection 2023 Sep. Cureus. 2023. PMID: 37809271 Free PMC article.
-
Surface treatment comparison by application of diamond bur and Er,Cr:YSGG at different powers: morphological and mechanical evaluation.Laser Ther. 2016 Oct 1;25(3):215-220. doi: 10.5978/islsm.16-OR-18. Laser Ther. 2016. PMID: 27853347 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller KA, Jung H, Federlin M, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clin Oral Invest. 2005;9:161–167. - PubMed
-
- Amaral FLB, Colucci V, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SAM. Assessment of in vitro methods used to promote adhesive interface degradation: a critical review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19:340–354. - PubMed
-
- Amaral FLB, Colucci V, Souza-Gabriel AE, Chinelatti MA, Palma Dibb RG, Corona SAM. Adhesion to Er: YAG laser-prepared dentin after long-term water storage and thermocycling. Oper Dent. 2008;33:51–58. - PubMed
-
- Ateyah NZ, Elhejazi AA. Shear bond strengths and microleakage of four types of dentin adhesive materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2004;5:63–73. - PubMed
-
- Brackett WW, Haisch LD, Pearce MG, Brackett MG. Microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations placed with self-etching adhesives. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:42–45. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources