OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin of three self-adhesive and a total-etch resin cements used for luting different treated indirect composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Composite overlays (Filtek Z250) were prepared. Their intaglio surfaces were ground with 600-grit SiC papers and randomly assigned to three different surface treatments: no treatment, silane application (RelyX Ceramic Primer), and silane agent followed by a bonding agent (Adper Scotchbond 1 XT). The composite overlays were luted to flat dentin surfaces of extracted human third molars using the following self-adhesive resin cements: RelyX Unicem, Maxcem Elite and G-Cem, and a total-etch resin cement, RelyX ARC. The bonded assemblies were stored in water (24 h, 37 °C) and subsequently prepared for μTBS testing. Beams of approximately 1 mm(2) were tested in tension at 1 mm/min in a universal tester (Instron 3345). Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant influence of the resin cement used was detected. Composite surface treatment and the interaction between the resin cement applied and surface treatment did not affect μTBS. CONCLUSIONS: Surface treatment of indirect resin composite did not improve the μTBS results of dentin/composite overlay complex. Self-adhesive resin cements tested obtained lower μTBS than the total-etch resin cement RelyX ARC. Specimens luted with Maxcem Elite exhibited the highest percentage of pretesting failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surface treatment of indirect resin composite with silane or silane followed by a bonding agent did not affect bond strength to dentin.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin of three self-adhesive and a total-etch resin cements used for luting different treated indirect composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Composite overlays (Filtek Z250) were prepared. Their intaglio surfaces were ground with 600-grit SiC papers and randomly assigned to three different surface treatments: no treatment, silane application (RelyX Ceramic Primer), and silane agent followed by a bonding agent (Adper Scotchbond 1 XT). The composite overlays were luted to flat dentin surfaces of extracted human third molars using the following self-adhesive resin cements: RelyX Unicem, Maxcem Elite and G-Cem, and a total-etch resin cement, RelyX ARC. The bonded assemblies were stored in water (24 h, 37 °C) and subsequently prepared for μTBS testing. Beams of approximately 1 mm(2) were tested in tension at 1 mm/min in a universal tester (Instron 3345). Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant influence of the resin cement used was detected. Composite surface treatment and the interaction between the resin cement applied and surface treatment did not affect μTBS. CONCLUSIONS: Surface treatment of indirect resin composite did not improve the μTBS results of dentin/composite overlay complex. Self-adhesive resin cements tested obtained lower μTBS than the total-etch resin cement RelyX ARC. Specimens luted with Maxcem Elite exhibited the highest percentage of pretesting failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surface treatment of indirect resin composite with silane or silane followed by a bonding agent did not affect bond strength to dentin.
Authors: Roland Frankenberger; Ulrich Lohbauer; Rainer B Schaible; Sergej A Nikolaenko; Michael Naumann Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Amerigo Cantoro; Cecilia Goracci; Carlos Augusto Carvalho; Ivanovic Coniglio; Marco Ferrari Journal: J Dent Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ronaldo G Viotti; Alline Kasaz; Carlos E Pena; Rodrigo S Alexandre; Cesar A Arrais; Andre F Reis Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Markus B Blatz; Jin-Ho Phark; Fusun Ozer; Francis K Mante; Najeed Saleh; Michael Bergler; Avishai Sadan Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 3.573