STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Several self-adhesive luting agents have recently been introduced on the market. It is crucial to know the effectiveness of such luting agents prior to their clinical application. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) produced by different self-adhesive cements and compare them with conventional luting agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six self-adhesive cements (RelyX Unicem (UN), RelyX U100 (UC), SmartCem 2 (SC), G-Cem (GC), Maxcem (MC), and SeT (SET), and 2 conventional luting agents, one that uses a 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (RelyX ARC (RX)), and one that uses a 1-step self-etching adhesive (Panavia F (PF)), were used in this study. An additional group included the use of a 2-step self-etching primer adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond) prior to the application of Panavia F (PS). Fifty-four human molars were abraded to expose occlusal surfaces and were assigned to 9 groups according to the luting material (n=6). Five composite resin (Filtek Z250) discs (12 mm in diameter, 5 mm thick) were cemented on the teeth according to manufacturers' instructions. After 24 hours of water storage, restored teeth were serially sectioned into beams with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm2 at the bonded interface and were tested in tension with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure mode was determined using scanning electron microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's studentized range HSD test (alpha =.05). RESULTS: Mean bond strengths (SD) in MPa were: RX, 69.6 (16.6)A; PS, 49.2 (9.7)A; PF, 33.7 (13.9)AB; GC, 16.9 (10.3)BC; UC, 15.3 (3.4)BC; UN, 12.5 (2.4)C; MC 11.5 (6.8)CD; SC, 8.5 (4.9)CD; SET, 4.6 (0.5)D. Groups with different uppercase letters were significantly different from each other (P<.05). The predominant failure mode of the self-adhesive cements was adhesive between the resin cement and dentin. CONCLUSIONS: The bond strengths produced by the multistep luting agents were significantly higher than those observed for most self-adhesive cements.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Several self-adhesive luting agents have recently been introduced on the market. It is crucial to know the effectiveness of such luting agents prior to their clinical application. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) produced by different self-adhesive cements and compare them with conventional luting agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six self-adhesive cements (RelyX Unicem (UN), RelyX U100 (UC), SmartCem 2 (SC), G-Cem (GC), Maxcem (MC), and SeT (SET), and 2 conventional luting agents, one that uses a 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (RelyX ARC (RX)), and one that uses a 1-step self-etching adhesive (Panavia F (PF)), were used in this study. An additional group included the use of a 2-step self-etching primer adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond) prior to the application of Panavia F (PS). Fifty-four human molars were abraded to expose occlusal surfaces and were assigned to 9 groups according to the luting material (n=6). Five composite resin (Filtek Z250) discs (12 mm in diameter, 5 mm thick) were cemented on the teeth according to manufacturers' instructions. After 24 hours of water storage, restored teeth were serially sectioned into beams with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm2 at the bonded interface and were tested in tension with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure mode was determined using scanning electron microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's studentized range HSD test (alpha =.05). RESULTS: Mean bond strengths (SD) in MPa were: RX, 69.6 (16.6)A; PS, 49.2 (9.7)A; PF, 33.7 (13.9)AB; GC, 16.9 (10.3)BC; UC, 15.3 (3.4)BC; UN, 12.5 (2.4)C; MC 11.5 (6.8)CD; SC, 8.5 (4.9)CD; SET, 4.6 (0.5)D. Groups with different uppercase letters were significantly different from each other (P<.05). The predominant failure mode of the self-adhesive cements was adhesive between the resin cement and dentin. CONCLUSIONS: The bond strengths produced by the multistep luting agents were significantly higher than those observed for most self-adhesive cements.
Authors: Marleen Peumans; M Voet; J De Munck; K Van Landuyt; A Van Ende; B Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Erhan Özcan; Ali Riza Çetin; İsmail Davut Capar; Ali Riza Tunçdemir; Hale Ari Aydinbelge Journal: Odontology Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 2.634