PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preheating composite resins used as luting agents for indirect restorations on microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and adhesive interfaces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty sound extracted third molars were used. Ten experimental groups were formed with three different luting agents: one resin cement (RelyX ARC) and two composite resins (Venus and Z250 XT). The composite resins were tested both at room temperature and when preheated to 64°C. Restoration depth was tested using 2 or 4 mm-height indirect composite resin restorations, previously made on cylindrical molds. Adhesive and luting procedures were done under simulated pulpal pressure. After luting, the teeth were sectioned into beams with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm2 at the bonded interface, and tested in tension at 0.5 mm/min. The characteristics of the adhesive interfaces were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The µTBS data were analyzed using ANOVA and the Tukey test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: When luting 2 mm restorations, the composite resin Z250 XT, preheated or at room temperature, achieved significantly higher µTBS than did RelyX ARC. At this depth, Venus did not differ from the resin cement, and with the 4 mm restorations, only preheated Venus presented significantly higher µTBS than RelyX ARC. Preheating the composite resin resulted in thinner luting interfaces, with a more intimate interaction between luting agent and adhesive layer. CONCLUSION: Preheating composite resin for luting procedures may not improve µTBS, although it could be used to reduce material viscosity and improve restoration setting.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preheating composite resins used as luting agents for indirect restorations on microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and adhesive interfaces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty sound extracted third molars were used. Ten experimental groups were formed with three different luting agents: one resin cement (RelyX ARC) and two composite resins (Venus and Z250 XT). The composite resins were tested both at room temperature and when preheated to 64°C. Restoration depth was tested using 2 or 4 mm-height indirect composite resin restorations, previously made on cylindrical molds. Adhesive and luting procedures were done under simulated pulpal pressure. After luting, the teeth were sectioned into beams with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm2 at the bonded interface, and tested in tension at 0.5 mm/min. The characteristics of the adhesive interfaces were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The µTBS data were analyzed using ANOVA and the Tukey test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: When luting 2 mm restorations, the composite resin Z250 XT, preheated or at room temperature, achieved significantly higher µTBS than did RelyX ARC. At this depth, Venus did not differ from the resin cement, and with the 4 mm restorations, only preheated Venus presented significantly higher µTBS than RelyX ARC. Preheating the composite resin resulted in thinner luting interfaces, with a more intimate interaction between luting agent and adhesive layer. CONCLUSION: Preheating composite resin for luting procedures may not improve µTBS, although it could be used to reduce material viscosity and improve restoration setting.
Authors: Manuel Salvador Urcuyo Alvarado; Diana María Escobar García; Amaury de Jesús Pozos Guillén; Juan Carlos Flores Arriaga; Gabriel Fernando Romo Ramírez; Marine Ortiz Magdaleno Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2020-09-15