Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents

The aim was to compare eight types of luting agents when used to bond six indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Cylinders of the six restorative materials (Esteticor Avenir [gold alloy], Tritan [titanium], NobelRondo [feldspathic porcelain], Finesse All-Ceramic [leucite-glass ceramic], Lava [zirconia], and Sinfony [resin composite]) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramic were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and were silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground human dentin with eight luting agents (DeTrey Zinc [zinc phosphate cement], Fuji I [conventional glass ionomer cement], Fuji Plus [resin-modified glass ionomer cement], Variolink II [conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement], Panavia F2.0 and Multilink [self-etch resin cements], and RelyX Unicem Aplicap and Maxcem [self-adhesive resin cements]). After water storage at 37°C for one week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n=8/group) was measured, and the fracture mode was stereomicroscopically examined. Bond strength data were analyzed with two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Newman-Keuls' Multiple Range Test (?=0.05). Both the restorative material and the luting agent had a significant effect on bond strength, and significant interaction was noted between the two variables. Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cements produced the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two self-etch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied markedly with the restorative material. The luting agents had a bigger influence on bond strength between restorative materials and dentin than was seen with the restorative material.

Dentin Bond Strength of Two Recent CAD/CAM-Materials after Storage

Purpose: To investigate the bond strength to dentin of two recent resin-ceramic materials for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) after 24 hours and after six months storage. Methods and Materials: Ninety cylinders were milled out of Lava Ultimate (3M ESPE) and 90 cylinders out of VITA ENAMIC (VITA Zahnfabrik) (dimension of cylinders: ∅=3.6 mm, h=2 mm). All Lava Ultimate cylinders were sandblasted (aluminium oxide, grain size: 27 μm) and cleaned with ethanol, whereas all VITA ENAMIC cylinders were acid-etched (5% hydrofluoric acid) and cleaned with water-spray. According to the three groups of cements used, the cylinders (n=30/resin-ceramic material) were further pretreated with 1) Scotchbond Universal for RelyX Ultimate (3M ESPE), 2) CLEARFIL Ceramic Primer for PANAVIA F2.0 (Kuraray), or 3) no further pretreatment for Ketac Cem Plus (3M ESPE). The cylinders were then bonded to ground human dentin specimens with 1) Scotchbond Universal and RelyX Ultimate (light-cured), 2) ED PRIMER II and PANAVIA F2.0 (light-cured), or 3) no adhesive system; Ketac Cem Plus (self-cured). Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured after 24 hours for 15 specimens/group and after six months (37°C, 100% humidity) for the other 15 specimens/group. SBS-values were statistically analysed with nonparametric ANOVA followed by exact Wilcoxon rank sum tests (α=0.05). Results: SBS of the two resin-ceramic materials and the three cements after 24 hours and after six months storage are shown in Figure 1. The statistical analysis showed that the duration of storage had a significant effect on SBS of Lava Ultimate for all three cements but had no significant effect on SBS of VITA ENAMIC. For Lava Ultimate SBS-values were (MPa; medians after 24 hours/six months): 13.5/22.5 (p=0.04) for RelyX Ultimate, 11.4/5.8 (p=0.0006) for PANAVIA F2.0, and 0.34/0.09 (p=0.04) for Ketac Cem Plus (Fig. 1). For VITA ENAMIC SBS-values were (MPa; medians after 24 hours/six months): 16.0/21.2 (p=0.10) for RelyX Ultimate, 11.4/14.4 (p=0.06) for PANAVIA F2.0, and 0.43/0.41 (p=0.32) for Ketac Cem Plus (Fig. 1). After 24 hours, there was no significant difference in SBS between Lava Ultimate and VITA ENAMIC for all three cements (p≥0.37). After six months, there was no significant difference in SBS between Lava Ultimate and VITA ENAMIC for RelyX Ultimate and Ketac Cem Plus (p≥0.07) whereas for PANAVIA F2.0, SBS was significantly lower for Lava Ultimate than for VITA ENAMIC (p<0.0001). Conclusion: SBS of Lava Ultimate was more affected by six months storage and by the cement used than was VITA ENAMIC.