INFLUENCE of DIFFERENT SURFACE CONDITIONING PROTOCOLS on MICROTENSILE BOND STRENGTH of SELF-ADHESIVE RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Statement of problem. According to manufacturers, bonding with self-adhesive resin cements can be achieved without any pretreatment steps such as etching, priming, or bonding. However, the benefit of saving time with these simplified luting systems may be realized at the expense of compromising the bonding capacity.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess whether different dentin conditioning protocols influence the bond performance of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin.Material and methods. Flat dentin surfaces from 48 human molars were divided into 4 groups (n=12): 1) control, no conditioning; 2) H(3)PO(4), etching with 37% H(3)PO(4) for 15 seconds; 3) SEBond, bonding with self-etching primer adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and 4) EDTA, etching with 0.1M EDTA for 60 seconds. The specimens from each dentin pre-treatment were bonded using the self-adhesive cements RelyX Unicem, Maxcem or Multilink Sprint (n=4). The resin-cement-dentin specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 7 days, and serially sectioned to produce beam specimens of 1.0 mm(2) cross-sectional area. Microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) testing was performed at 1.0 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (x40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive. Additional bonded interfaces were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).Results. Cement-dentin mu TBS was affected by the dentin conditioning approach (P <.001). RelyX Unicem attained statistically similar bond strengths to all pre-treated dentin surfaces. H(3)PO(4)-etching prior to the application of Maxcem resulted in bond strength values that were significantly higher than the other groups. The lowest mu TBS were attained when luting Multilink Sprint per manufacturers' recommendations, while H(3)PO(4)-etching produced the highest values followed by Clearfil SE bonding and EDTA. SEM observations disclosed an enhanced potential of the self-adhesive cements to form a hybrid layer when applied following manufacturer's instructions.Conclusions. When evaluated self-adhesive resin cements are used, selectively etching dentin with H(3)PO(4) prior to luting results in the most effective bonding. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:227-235)

Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic

Statement of problem. It is not clear how different glass ceramic surface pretreatments influence the bonding capacity of various luting agents to these surfaces.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of 3 resin cements to a lithia disilicate-based ceramic submitted to 2 surface conditioning treatments.Material and methods. Eighteen 5 X 6 X 8-mm ceramic (IPS Empress 2) blocks were fabricated according to manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Ceramic blocks were polished and divided into 2 groups (n=9/treatment): no conditioning (no-conditioning/control), or 5% hydrofluoric acid etching for 20 seconds and silanization for 1 minute (HF + SIL). Ceramic blocks were cemented to the composite resin blocks with I self-adhesive universal resin cement (RelyX Unicem) or 1 of 2 resin-based luting agents (Multilink or Panavia F), according to the manufacturer's instructions. The composite resin-ceramic blocks were stored in humidity at 37 degrees C for 7 days and serially sectioned to produce 25 beam specimens per group with a 1.0-mm(2) cross-sectional area. Specimens were thermal cycled (5000 cycles, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C) and tested in tension at 1 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons tests (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (X40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive.Results. The surface conditioning factor was significant (HF+SIL > no-conditioning) (P<.0001). Considering the unconditioned groups, the mu TBS of RelyX Unicem was significantly higher (9.6 +/- 1.9) than that of Multilink (6.2 +/- 1.2) and Panavia F (7.4 +/- 1.9). Previous etching and silanization yielded statistically higher mu TBS values for RelyX Unicem (18.8 +/- 3.5) and Multilink (17.4 +/- 3.0) when compared to Panavia F (15.7 +/- 3.8). Spontaneous debonding after thermal cycling was detected when luting agents were applied to untreated ceramic surfaces.Conclusion. Etching and silanization treatments appear to be crucial for resin bonding to a lithia disilicate-based ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used.