Surface conditioning of a composite used for inlay/onlay restorations: Effect on mu TBS to resin cement

Purpose: To assess the effect of the composite surface conditioning on the microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to a composite used for inlay/onlay restorations.Materials and Methods: Forty-two blocks (6 x 6 x 4 mm) of a microfilled composite (Vita VMLC) were produced and divided into 3 groups (N = 14) by composite surface conditioning methods: Gr1 - etching with 37% phosphoric acid, washing, drying, silanization; Gr2 - air abrasion with 50-Im Al203 particles, silanization; Gr3 - chairside tribochemiCal silica coating (CoJet System), silanization. Single-Bond (one-step adhesive) was applied on the conditioned surfaces and the two resin blocks treated with the same method were cemented using RelyX ARC (dual-curing resin cement). The specimens were stored for 7 days in water at 37 degrees C and then sectioned to produce nontrimmed beam samples, which were submitted to microtensile bond strength testing (mu TBS). For statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test, = 0.05), the means of the beam samples from each luted specimen were calculated (n = 7).Results: mu TBS values (MPa) of Gr2 (62.0 +/- 3.9a) and Gr3 (60.5 +/- 7.9a) were statistically similar to each other and higher than Gr1 (38.2 +/- 8.9b). The analysis of the fractured surfaces revealed that all failures occurred at the adhesive zone.Conclusion: Conditioning methods with 50-Im Al203 or tribochemical silica coating allowed bonding between resin and composite that was statistically similar and stronger than conditioning with acid etching.

Does the thickness of the resin cement affect the bond strength of a fiber post to the root dentin?

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of cement thickness on the bond strength of a fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post system to the root dentin. Eighteen single-rooted human teeth were decoronated (length: 16 mm), the canals were prepared, and the specimens were randomly allocated to 2 groups (n = 9): group 1 (low cement thickness), in which size 3 FRC posts were cemented using adhesive plus resin cement; and group 2 (high cement thickness), in which size 1 FRC posts were cemented as in group 1. Specimens were sectioned, producing 5 samples (thickness: 1.5 mm). For cement thickness evaluation, photographs of the samples were taken using an optical microscope, and the images were analyzed. Each sample was tested in push-out, and data were statistically analyzed. Bond strengths of groups 1 and 2 did not show significant differences (P = .558), but the cement thicknesses for these groups were significantly different (P < .0001). The increase in cement thickness did not significantly affect the bond strength (r2 = 0.1389, P = .936). Increased cement thickness surrounding the FRC post did not impair the bond strength.

Bond strength of adhesive systems to human tooth enamel

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro three adhesive systems: a total etching single-component system (G1 Prime & Bond 2.1), a self-etching primer (G2 Clearfil SE Bond), and a self-etching adhesive (G3 One Up Bond F), through shear bond strength to enamel of human teeth, evaluating the type of fracture through stereomicroscopy, following the ISO guidance on adhesive testing. Thirty sound premolars were bisected mesiodistally and the buccal and lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic resin, polished up to 600-grit sandpapers, and randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 20). Composite resin cylinders were added to the tested surfaces. The specimens were kept in distilled water (37°C/24 h), thermocycled for 500 cycles (5°C-55°C) and submitted to shear testing at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The type of fracture was analyzed under stereomicroscopy and the data were submitted to Anova, Tukey and Chi-squared (5%) statistical analyses. The mean adhesive strengths were G1: 18.13 ± 6.49 MPa, (55% of resin cohesive fractures); G2: 17.12 ± 5.80 MPa (90% of adhesive fractures); and G3: 10.47 ± 3.14 MPa (85% of adhesive fractures). In terms of bond strength, there were no significant differences between G1 and G2, and G3 was significantly different from the other groups. G1 presented a different type of fracture from that of G2 and G3. In conclusion, although the total etching and self-etching systems presented similar shear bond strength values, the types of fracture presented by them were different, which can have clinical implications.