J D Lafuente1, A Chaves, R Carmiol. 1. Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Costa Rica, School of Dentistry, San José, Costa Rica. jlafuent@cariari.ucr.ac.cr
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the bond strength of four commercial resin luting cements to enamel and superficial dentin, using a second-generation laboratory composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty teeth were embedded in acrylic: 20 had superficial dentin exposed; 20 had enamel exposed. Each group was divided into four subgroups (n = 5) to be bonded with Variolink II, Dual Cement, 2-bond-2, and Permalute System, using an inverted, truncated cone of pre-cured Artglass that was placed over the resin cement with a load of 2 N for 2 seconds. Specimens were stored at 37 degrees C in 100% relative humidity for 24 hours before being tested for tensile bond strength (MPa). Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance. Tukey-Kramer intervals for comparisons among resin cements and bonding substrates were calculated at a .05 significance level. RESULTS: Significant differences were found among resin cements. Variolink II had statistically higher bond strength values for both substrates than the rest of the cements evaluated. When bonding was to enamel, all failures were cohesive in the composite, and when bonding was to dentin, some adhesive failures occurred at the resin cement-dentin interface. Permalute System had higher bond strengths than 2-bond-2 and Dual Cement when bonded to enamel. CONCLUSIONS: Variolink II and Permalute had statistically different bond strengths to enamel and dentin. Variolink II showed statistically higher values for dentin bonding than the other cements. Use of Variolink II and Permalute resulted in statistically higher bond strengths than the other two cements.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the bond strength of four commercial resin luting cements to enamel and superficial dentin, using a second-generation laboratory composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty teeth were embedded in acrylic: 20 had superficial dentin exposed; 20 had enamel exposed. Each group was divided into four subgroups (n = 5) to be bonded with Variolink II, Dual Cement, 2-bond-2, and Permalute System, using an inverted, truncated cone of pre-cured Artglass that was placed over the resin cement with a load of 2 N for 2 seconds. Specimens were stored at 37 degrees C in 100% relative humidity for 24 hours before being tested for tensile bond strength (MPa). Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance. Tukey-Kramer intervals for comparisons among resin cements and bonding substrates were calculated at a .05 significance level. RESULTS: Significant differences were found among resin cements. Variolink II had statistically higher bond strength values for both substrates than the rest of the cements evaluated. When bonding was to enamel, all failures were cohesive in the composite, and when bonding was to dentin, some adhesive failures occurred at the resin cement-dentin interface. Permalute System had higher bond strengths than 2-bond-2 and Dual Cement when bonded to enamel. CONCLUSIONS: Variolink II and Permalute had statistically different bond strengths to enamel and dentin. Variolink II showed statistically higher values for dentin bonding than the other cements. Use of Variolink II and Permalute resulted in statistically higher bond strengths than the other two cements.