Bond Strength of Two Resin Cements on Dentin Using Different Cementation Strategies

Purpose:This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength of two resin cements to dentin either with their corresponding self-etching adhesives or employing the three-step etch-and-rinse technique. The null hypothesis was that the etch-and-rinse adhesive system would generate higher bond strengths than the self-etching adhesives.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two human molars were randomly divided into four groups (N = 32, n = 8/per group): G1) ED Primer self-etching adhesive + Panavia F; G2) All-Bond 2 etch-and-rinse adhesive + Panavia F; G3) Multilink primer A/B self-etching adhesive + Multilink resin cement; G4) All-Bond 2 + Multilink. After cementation of composite resin blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm), the specimens were stored in water (37 degrees C, 24 hours), and sectioned to obtain beams (+/- 1 mm2 of adhesive area) to be submitted to microtensile test. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results:Although the cement type did not significantly affect the results (p = 0.35), a significant effect of the adhesive system (p = 0.0001) was found on the bond strength results. Interaction terms were not significant (p = 0.88751). The etch-and-rinse adhesive provided significantly higher bond strength values (MPa) with both resin cements (G2: 34.4 +/- 10.6; G4: 33.0 +/- 8.9) compared to the self-etching adhesive systems (G1: 19.8 +/- 6.6; G3: 17.8 +/- 7.2) (p < 0.0001). Pretest failures were more frequent in the groups where self-etching systems were used.Conclusion:Although the cement type did not affect the results, there was a significant effect of changing the bonding strategy. The use of the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive resulted in significantly higher bond strength for both resin cements on dentin.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEDual polymerized resin cements tested could deliver higher bond strength to dentin in combination with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems as opposed to their use in combination with self-etching adhesives.(J Esthet Restor Dent 22:262-269, 2010).

Durability of Microtensile Bond to Nonetched and Etched Feldspar Ceramic: Self-adhesive Resin Cements vs Conventional Resin

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of thermocycling (TC), self-adhesive resin cements and surface conditioning on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) between feldspathic ceramic blocks and resin cements.Materials and Methods: Fifty-six feldspathic ceramic blocks (10 x 7 x 5 mm) (Vita Mark II) were divided into groups according to the factors "resin cement" (3 cements) and "surface conditioning" (no conditioning or conditioning [10% hydrofluoric acid etching for 5 min + silanization]) (n = 8): group 1: conditioning+Variolink II (control group); group 2: no conditioning+Biscem; group 3: no conditioning+RelyX U100; group 4: no conditioning+Maxcem Elite; group 5: conditioning+Biscem; group 6: conditioning+RelyX U100; group 7: conditioning+Maxcem Elite. The ceramic-cement blocks were sectioned to produce non-trimmed bar specimens (adhered cross-sectional area: 1 +/- 0.1 mm(2)), which were divided into two storage conditions: dry, mu TBS immediately after cutting; TC (12,000x, 5 degrees C/55 degrees C). Statistical significance was deterimined using two-way ANOVA (7 strategies and 2 storage conditions) and the post-hoc Tukey test (p<0.05).Results: Resin cement and thermocycling affected the mu TBS significantly (p = 0.001). In the dry condition, group 5 (18 +/- 6.5 MPa) presented the lowest values of mu TBS when compared to the other groups. TC decreased the mean mu TBS values significantly (p<0.05) for all resin cements tested (9.7 +/- 2.3 to 22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa), except for the resin cement RelyX U100 (22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa). In groups 3 and 4, it was not possible to measure mu TBS, since these groups had 100% pre-test failures during sectioning. Moreover, the same occurred in group 2 after TC, where 100% failure was observed during thermocycling (spontaneous failures).Conclusion: Hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization of the feldspathic ceramic surface are essential for bonding self-adhesive resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used. Non-etched ceramic is not recommended.

Bond strength durability of a resin composite on a reinforced ceramic using various repair systems

Objectives. This study compared the durability of repair bond strength of a resin composite to a reinforced ceramic after three repair systems.Methods. Alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic blocks (Vitadur-alpha(R)) (N=30) were randomly divided into three groups according to the repair method: PR-Porcelain Repair Kit (Bisco) [etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid + silanization + adhesive]; CJ-CoJet Repair Kit (3M ESPE) [(chairside silica coating with 30 mu m SiO2 + silanization (ESPE(R)-Sil) + adhesive (Visio(TM)-Bond)]; CL-Clearfil Repair Kit [diamond surface roughening, etching with 40% H3PO4 + Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator + Clearfil SE Bond)]. Resin composite was photo-polymerized on each conditioned ceramic block. Non-trimmed beam specimens were produced for the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) tests. In order to study the hydrolytic durability of the repair methods, the beam specimens obtained from each block were randomly assigned to two conditions. Half of the specimens were tested either immediately after beam production (Dry) or after long-term water storage (37 degrees C, 150 days) followed by thermocyling (12,000 cycles, 5-55 degrees C) in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure types were analyzed under an optical microscope and SEM.Results. mu TBS results were significantly affected by the repair method (p=0.0001) and the aging conditions (p=0.0001) (two-way ANOVA, Tukey's test). In dry testing conditions, PR method showed significantly higher (p < 0.001) repair bond strength (19.8 +/- 3.8 MPa) than those of CJ and CL (12.4 +/- 4.7 and 9.9 +/- 2.9, respectively). After long-term water storage and thermocycling, CJ revealed significantly higher results (14.5 +/- 3.1 MPa) than those of PR (12.1 +/- 2.6 MPa) (p < 0.01) and CL (4.2 +/- 2.1 MPa) (p < 0.001). In all groups when tested in dry conditions, cohesive failure in the composite accompanied with adhesive failure at the interface (mixed failures), was frequently observed (76%, 80%, 65% for PR, CJ and CL, respectively). After aging conditions, while the specimens treated with PR and CJ presented primarily mixed failure types (52% and 87%, respectively), CL group presented mainly complete adhesive failures at the interface (70%).Significance. Hydrolytic stability of the repair method based on silica coating and silanization was superior to the other repair strategies for the ceramic tested. (C) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of Cement Shade and Light-curing Unit on Bond Strength of a Ceramic Cemented to Dentin

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of cement shade, light-curing unit, and water storage on tensile bond strength (a) of a feldspathic ceramic resin bonded to dentin.Materials and Methods: The dentin surface of 40 molars was exposed and etched with 37% phosphoric acid, then an adhesive system was applied. Forty blocks of feldspathic ceramic (Vita VM7) were produced. The ceramic surface was etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s, followed by the application of a silane agent and a dual-curing resin cement (Variolink II). Ceramic blocks were cemented to the treated dentin using either A3 or transparent (Tr) shade cement that was activated using either halogen or LED light for 40 s. All blocks were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 h before cutting to obtain non-trimmed bar-shaped specimens (adhesive area = 1 mm(2) +/- 0.1) for the microtensile bond strength test. The specimens were randomly grouped according to the storage time: no storage or stored for 150 days in 37 degrees C distilled water. Eight experimental groups were obtained (n = 30). The specimens were submitted to the tensile bond strength test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (alpha = 0.05).Results: The mean bond strength values were significantly lower for the corresponding water stored groups, except for the specimens using A3 resin cement activated by halogen light. There was no significance difference in mean bond strength values among all groups after water storage.Conclusion: Water storage had a detrimental effect under most experimental conditions. For both cement shades investigated (Tr and A3) under the same storage condition, the light-curing units (QTH and LED) did not affect the mean microtensile bond strengths of resin-cemented ceramic to dentin.

Effect of antioxidant agents on bond strength of composite to bleached enamel with 38% hydrogen peroxide

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effect of dental surface treatment with Nd:YAG and Er:YAG lasers on bond strength of resin composite to recently bleached enamel

The aim of this work is to evaluate the effect of surface treatment with Er:YAG and Nd:YAG lasers on resin composite bond strength to recently bleached enamel. In this study, 120 bovine incisors were distributed into two groups: group C: without bleaching treatment; group B: bleached with 35% hydrogen peroxide. Each group was divided into three subgroups: subgroup N: without laser treatment; subgroup Nd: irradiation with Nd:YAG laser; subgroup Er: irradiation with Er:YAG laser. The adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2) was then applied and composite buildups were constructed with Filtek Supreme composite. The teeth were sectioned to obtain enamel-resin sticks (1 x 1 mm) and submitted to microtensile bond testing. The data were statistically analyzed by the ANOVA and Tukey tests. The bond strength values in the bleached control group (5.57 MPa) presented a significant difference in comparison to the group bleached and irradiated with Er:YAG laser (13.18 MPa) or Nd:YAG (25.67 MPa). The non-bleached control group presented mean values of 30.92 MPa, with statistical difference of all the others groups. The use of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG lasers on bleached specimens was able to improve the bond strengths of them.

Effects of Surface Hydration and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin

The effect of application methods and dentin hydration on the bond strength of three self-etching adhesives (SEA) were evaluated; 195 extracted bovine incisors were used. The buccal surface was ground in order to expose the dentin, which remained 2-mm minimum thickness, measured by a thickness meter through an opening on the lingual surface. Adper Single Bond 2 (TM) was used for the control group. The SEA were applied following two modes of application: passive or active and two hydration states of the dentin surface-dry and wet. After light-curing, composite buildups were made using Grandio (TM) composite. The specimens were sectioned and tested with a microtensile bond strength test. The application method and the hydration state resulted in statistical differences (p = 0.000) making the values of active application for mu TBS to dentin higher than passive application. The wet surfaces showed higher mu TBS to dentin ratios than dry surfaces. There were no statistical differences in mu TBS among the SEA tested but there were differences regarding to control group.

Microtensile bond strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self-adhesive and self-etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-adhesive Cements to Dentin With or Without Application of Adhesive Systems

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength of indirect restorations to dentin using self-adhesive cements with and without the application of adhesive systems.Material and Methods: Seventy-two bovine incisors were used, in which the buccal surfaces were ground down to expose an area of dentin measuring a minimum of 4 x 4 mm. The indirect resin composite Resilab was used to make 72 blocks, which were cemented onto the dentin surface of the teeth and divided into 4 groups (n = 18): group 1: self-adhesive resin cement BiFix SE, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 2: self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem, used according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 3: etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system + BiFix SE; group 4: etch-and-rinse Single Bond 2 adhesive system + RelyX Unicem. The specimens were sectioned into sticks and subjected to microtensile testing in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-200MF). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The mean values (+/- standard deviation) obtained for the groups were: group 1: 15.28 (+/- 8.17)(a), group 2: 14.60 (+/- 5.21)(a), group 3: 39.20 (+/- 9.98)(c), group 4: 27.59 (+/- 6.57)(b). Different letters indicate significant differences (ANOVA; p = 0.0000).Conclusion: The application of adhesive systems before self-adhesive cements significantly increased the bond strength to dentin. In group 2, RelyX Unicem associated with the adhesive system Single Bond 2 showed significantly lower mean tensile bond strengths than group 3 (BiFix SE associated with the etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system).

Effects of Surface Hydration State and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives to Cut Enamel

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface hydration state and application method on the microtensile bond strength of one-step self-etching adhesives systems to cut enamel.Materials and Methods: One hundred ninety-five bovine teeth were used. The enamel on the buccal side was flattened with 600-grit SiC paper. For the control group, 15 teeth received Adper Single Bond 2, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations. The other specimens were divided into three groups according to the adhesive system used: Futura Bond M (FM; Voco), Clearfil S-3 Bond (CS; Kuraray), and Optibond All in One (OA; Kerr). For each group, two hydration states were tested: D: blown dry with air; W: the excess of water was removed with absorbent paper. Two application methods were tested: P (passive): the adhesive was simply left on the surface; A (active): the adhesive was rubbed with an applicator point. A coat of Grandio composite resin (Voco) was applied on the surface. The teeth were sectioned to obtain enamel-resin sticks (1 x 1 mm), which underwent microtensile bond testing. The data in MPa were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences for application method and the type of adhesive, but not for hydration state. For the application method, the results of Tukey's test were: P: 31.46 (+/-7.09)a; A: 34.04 (+/-7.19)b. For the type of adhesive, the results were: OA: 31.29 (+/-7.05)a; CS: 32.28 (+/-7.14)a; FM: 34.68 (+/-7.17)b; different lower-case letters indicate statistically significant differences.Conclusion: Active application improved the bond strength to cut enamel. The adhesive Futurabond M showed the highest bond strength to cut enamel.

BOND STRENGTH DURABILITY of SELF-ETCHING ADHESIVES and RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Objectives: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of one-(Xeno III, Dentsply) and two-step (Tyrian-One Step Plus, Bisco) self-etching adhesive systems bonded to dentin and cemented to chemically cured (C&B Metabond) or light-cured paste of a dual-cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar) within a short (24 h) and long period of evaluation (90 days). Material and Methods: Forty recently extracted human molars had their roots removed and their occlusal dentin exposed and ground wet with 600-grit SiC paper. After application of one of the adhesives, the resin cement was applied to the bonded surface and a composite resin block was incrementally built up to a height of 5 mm (n = 10). The restored teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 C for 7 days. The teeth were then cut along two axes (x and y), producing beam-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm(2) cross-sectional area, which were subjected to mu TBS testing at a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min and stressed to failure after 24 h or 90 days of storage in water. The mu TBS data in MPa were subjected to three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). Results: The interaction effect for all three factors was statistically significant (three-way ANOVA, p < 0.001). All eight experimental means (MPa) were compared by the Tukey's test (p < 0.05) and the following results were obtained: Tyrian-One Step Plus /C&B/24 h (22.4 +/- 7.3); Tyrian-One Step Plus /Variolink II/24 h (39.4 +/- 11.6); Xeno III/C&B/24 h (40.3 +/- 12.9); Xeno III/Variolink II/24 h (25.8 +/- 10.5); Tyrian-One Step Plus / C&B/90 d (22.1 +/- 12.8) Tyrian-One Step Plus/VariolinkII/90 d (24.2 +/- 14.2); Xeno III/C&B/90 d (27.0 +/- 13.5); Xeno III/Variolink II/90 d (33.0 +/- 8.9). Conclusions: Xeno III/Variolink II was the luting agent/adhesive combination that provided the most promising bond strength after 90 days of storage in water.

Comparison of two bond strength testing methodologies for bilayered all-ceramics

Objectives. This study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and microtensile (MTBS) testing methodologies for core and veneering ceramics in four types of all-ceramic systems.Methods. Four different ceramic veneer/core combinations, three of which were feldspathic and the other a fluor-apatite to their respectively corresponding cores, namely leucitereinforced ceramic ((IPS)Empress, Ivoclar), low leucite-reinforced ceramic (Finesse, Ceramco), glass-infiltrated alumina (In-Ceram Alumina, Vita) and lithium disilicate ((IPS)Empress 2, Ivoclar) were used for SBS and MTBS tests. Ceramic cores (N = 40, n = 10/group for SBS test method, N=5blocks/group for MTBS test method) were fabricated according to the manufacturers' instructions (for SBS: thickness, 3 mm; diameter, 5 mm and for MTBS: 10 mm x 10 mm x 2 mm) and ultrasonically cleaned. The veneering ceramics (thickness: 2 mm) were vibrated and condensed in stainless steel moulds and fired onto the core ceramic materials. After trying the specimens in the mould for minor adjustments, they were again ultrasonically cleaned and embedded in PMMA. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 1 week and bond strength tests were performed in universal testing machines (cross-head speed: 1mm/min). The bond strengths (MPa +/- S.D.) and modes of failures were recorded.Results. Significant difference between the two test methods and all-ceramic types were observed (P < 0.05) (2-way ANOVA, Tukey's test and Bonferroni). The mean SBS values for veneering ceramic to lithium disilicate was significantly higher (41 +/- 8 MPa) than those to low leucite (28 +/- 4 MPa), glass-infiltrated (26 +/- 4 MPa) and leucite-reinforced (23 +/- 3 MPa) ceramics, while the mean MTBS for low leucite ceramic was significantly higher (15 +/- 2 MPa) than those of leucite (12 +/- 2 MPa), glass-infiltrated (9 +/- 1 MPa) and lithium disilicate ceramic (9 +/- 1 MPa) (ANOVA, P < 0.05).Significance. Both the testing methodology and the differences in chemical compositions of the core and veneering ceramics influenced the bond strength between the core and veneering ceramic in bilayered all-ceramic systems. (c) 2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Repair bond strength of a resin composite to alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic

This study compared the microtensile bond strength of a repair resin to an alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur-alpha, Vita) after 3 surface conditioning methods: Group 1, etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 1 minute plus rinsing and drying, followed by application of silane for 5 minutes; group 2, airborne particle abrasion with 110-mm aluminum oxide using a chairside air-abrasion device followed by silane application for 5 minutes; group 3, chairside tribochemical silica coating with 30-mu m SiOx followed by silane application for 5 minutes (N = 30). Group 1 presented the highest mean bond strength (19.7 +/- 3.8 MPa), which was significantly higher than those of groups 2 (10 +/- 2.6 MPa) and 3 (10.4 +/- 4 MPa) (P <.01). Scanning electron microscope analysis of the failure modes demonstrated predominantly mixed types of failures, with adhesive and/or cohesive failures in all experimental groups.

Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: The effect of surface conditioning

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to three high-strength core ceramics: high alumina-based (In-Ceram Alumina, Procera AllCeram) and zirconia-reinforced alumina-based (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramics. Materials and Methods: Ten blocks (5 ×6 × 8 mm) of In-Ceram Alumina (AL), In-Ceram Zirconia (ZR), and Procera (PR) ceramics were fabricated according to each manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in composite. The specimens were assigned to one of the two following treatment conditions: (1) airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 particles + silanization, (2) silica coating with 30 μm SiOx particles (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silanization. Each ceramic block was duplicated in composite resin (W3D-Master, Wilcos, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) using a mold made out of silicon impression material. Composite resin layers were incrementally condensed into the mold to fill up the mold and each layer was light polymerized for 40 s. The composite blocks were bonded to the surface-conditioned ceramic blocks using a resin cement system (Panavia F, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan). One composite resin block was fabricated for each ceramic block. The ceramic-composite was stored at 37°C in distilled water for 7 days prior to bond tests. The blocks were cut under water cooling to produce bar specimens (n = 30) with a bonding area of approximately 0.6 mm2. The bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). Bond strength values were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (≤ 0.05). Results: Silica coating with silanization increased the bond strength significantly for all three high-strength ceramics (18.5 to 31.2 MPa) compared to that of airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 (12.7-17.3 MPa) (ANOVA, p < 0.05). PR exhibited the lowest bond strengths after both Al2O3 and silica coating (12.7 and 18.5 MPa, respectively). Conclusion: Conditioning the high-strength ceramic surfaces with silica coating and silanization provided higher bond strengths of the resin cement than with airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 and silanization.

Bond strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface conditioning methods before and after thermocycling

This study aimed to evaluate the durability of adhesion between acrylic teeth and denture base acrylic resin. The base surfaces of 24 acrylic teeth were flatted and submitted to 4 surface treatment methods: SM1 (control): No SM; SM2: application of a methyl methacrylate-based bonding agent (Vitacol); SM3: air abrasion with 30-μm silicone oxide plus silane; SM4: SM3 plus SM2. A heat-polymerized acrylic resin was applied to the teeth. Thereafter, bar specimens were produced for the microtensile test at dry and thermocyled conditions (60 days water storage followed by 12,000 cycles). The results showed that bond strength was significantly affected by the SM (P < .0001) (SM4 = SM2 > SM3 > SM1) and storage regimens (P < .0001) (dry > thermocycled). The methyl methacrylate-based adhesive showed the highest bond strength.