The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Influence of Cavity Pretreatments on the Fracture Resistance of Premolars with Self-adhesive Cemented Composite Inlay

Fereshteh Shafiei, Zahra Jowkar, Neda Hosseini

Keywords : Acid-etching, Fracture resistance, Inlay, Self-adhesive cement, Universal adhesive

Citation Information : Shafiei F, Jowkar Z, Hosseini N. Influence of Cavity Pretreatments on the Fracture Resistance of Premolars with Self-adhesive Cemented Composite Inlay. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):828-833.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2605

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-07-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate whether different cavity pretreatment approaches affect the strength of premolars restored with self-adhesive (SA) resin cemented-composite resin inlays after mechanical and water aging. Materials and methods: A total of 120 intact maxillary premolars were divided into 10 groups (n = 12). Mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared in the teeth of nine groups, except group I in which the teeth remained intact. In group II, cavities were unrestored. Following fabrication of composite resin inlays for groups III–X, in group III, the inlays were cemented using the etch-and-rinse (E and R) adhesive/conventional resin cement. In other groups, cementation was performed using a SA cement with or without cavity pretreatments as follows: group IV: SA cement alone, group V: acid etching of enamel and dentin, group VI: acid etching of enamel, group VII: universal adhesive in the selective enamel-etching mode, group VIII: universal adhesive in the E and R mode, group IX: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) conditioning, and group X: 20% polyacrylic acid conditioning. After aging processes, static fracture resistance was tested. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Dunn tests (α = 0.05). Results: Fracture resistance of the 10 groups yielded a significant difference (p < 0.001). The median fracture resistances in Newton were the following: Gr I = 1025A, Gr II = 311BC, Gr III = 785A, Gr IV = 500B, Gr V = 435B, Gr VI = 775A, Gr VII = 805A, Gr VIII = 411BC, Gr IX = 397BC, and Gr X = 312C. Conclusion: Unlike the conventional method, SA cementation could not restore the strength of inlay-cemented premolars. Selective enamel acid etching with or without universal adhesive significantly increased the fracture resistance. Clinical significance: Selective enamel acid etching is recommended for increasing the fracture resistance of the SA cemented composite inlay to the level of intact teeth.

PDF Share
  1. Siso ŞH, Hürmüzlü F, et al. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. Int Endod J 2007;40:161–168. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01192.x.
  2. Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, et al. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014;26:382–393. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12100.
  3. Prochnow EP, Amaral M, et al. Microtensile bond strength between indirect composite resin inlays and dentin: effect of cementation strategy and mechanical aging. J Adhes Dent 2014;16:357–363. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a31801.
  4. Cura M, González-González I, et al. Effect of surface treatment and aging on bond strength of composite resin onlays. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:389–396. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.016.
  5. Liu X, Fok A, et al. Influence of restorative material and proximal cavity design on the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restoration. Dent Mater 2014;30:327–333. DOI: 10.1016/
  6. El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, et al. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 2003;19:575–583.
  7. Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2007;23:71–80. DOI: 10.1016/
  8. Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, et al. Self-adhesive resin cements–chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:295–314. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02148.x.
  9. Lührs AK, Guhr S, et al. Shear bond strength of self-adhesive resins compared to resin cements with etch and rinse adhesives to enamel and dentin in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:193–199. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0279-z.
  10. Vaz RR, Hipólito VD, et al. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of etch-and-rinse and self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Prosthodont 2012;21:101–311. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00794.x.
  11. Rodrigues RF, Ramos CM, et al. The shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin and enamel: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:220–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.08.008.
  12. De Munck J, Vargas M, et al. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004;20:963–971. DOI: 10.1016/
  13. Monticelli F, Osorio R, et al. Limited decalcification/diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin. J Dent Res 2008;87:974–979. DOI: 10.1177/154405910808701012.
  14. Salaverry A, Borges GA, et al. Effect of resin cements and aging on cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of teeth restored with composite resin inlays. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:561–568. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a29608.
  15. Barcellos DC, Batista GR, et al. Evaluation of bond strength of self-adhesive cements to dentin with or without application of adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:261–265. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a19224.
  16. Pisani-Proença J, Erhardt MC, et al. Influence of different surface conditioning protocols on microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:227–235. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60037-1.
  17. Pavan S, Dos Santos PH, et al. The effect of dentin pretreatment on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104:258–264. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60134-5.
  18. Stona P, Borges GA, et al. Effect of polyacrylic acid on the interface and bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:221–227. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a29531.
  19. Mazzitelli C, Monticelli F, et al. Dentin treatment effects on the bonding performance of self-adhesive resin cements. Eur J Oral Sci 2010;118:80–86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00703.x.
  20. Mushashe AM, et al. Effect of Enamel and Dentin Surface Treatment on the Self-Adhesive Resin Cement Bond Strength. Braz Dent J 2016;27:537–542.
  21. Shafiei F, Doozandeh M, et al. Effect of Different Liners on Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored with Conventional and Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resins. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e304–e309. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12743.
  22. Kalay TS, Yildirim T, et al. Effects of different cusp coverage restorations on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:404–410. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.007.
  23. Saikaew P, Chowdhury AA, et al. The effect of dentine surface preparation and reduced application time of adhesive on bonding strength. J Dent 2016;47:63–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.02.001.
  24. De Munck J, Mine A, et al. Meta-analytical review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. J Dent Res 2012;91:351–357. DOI: 10.1177/0022034511431251.
  25. Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, et al. Influence of water storage on fatigue strength of self-etch adhesives. J Dent 2015;43:1416–1427. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.10.018.
  26. Coelho-De-Souza FH, et al. Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage. Oper Dent 2008;33:37–43. DOI: 10.2341/07-27.
  27. Duarte S, Botta AC, et al. Microtensile bond strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self-adhesive and self-etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100: 203–210. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60179-1.
  28. Lin J, Shinya A, et al. Bonding of self-adhesive resin cements to enamel using different surface treatments: bond strength and etching pattern evaluations. Dent Mater J 2010;29:425–432.
  29. Benetti P, Boas Fernandes Junior VV, et al. Bonding efficacy of new self-etching, self-adhesive dual-curing resin cements to dental enamel. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:231–234. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a19228.
  30. Temel UB, Van AE, et al. Bond strength and cement-tooth interfacial characterization of self-adhesive composite cements. Am J Dent 2017;30:205–211.
  31. Zhang Z, Beitzel D, et al. Effect of carbodiimide on the fatigue crack growth resistance of resin–dentin bonds. Dent Mater 2016;32: 211–222. DOI: 10.1016/
  32. Sai K, Shimamura Y, et al. Influence of degradation conditions on dentin bonding durability of three universal adhesives. J Dent 2016;54:56–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.004.
  33. Hanabusa M, Mine A, et al. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 2012;40:475–484. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012.
  34. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 2014;42:603–612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012.
  35. Suyama Y, De Munck J, et al. Bond durability of self-adhesive composite cements to dentine. J Dent 2013;41:908–917.
  36. Santos MJ, Bapoo H, et al. Effect of dentin-cleaning techniques on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin. Oper Dent 2011;36:512–520. DOI: 10.2341/10-392-L.
  37. Taha NA, Palamara JE, et al. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root-filled teeth restored with direct resin composite restorations under static and fatigue loading. Oper Dent 2014;39:181–188. DOI: 10.2341/13-006-L.
  38. Shafiei FE, Safarpoor I, et al. Effect of light activation mode on the incompatibility between one-bottle adhesives and light-cured composites: an in vitro shear bond strength study. Oper Dent 2009;34(5):558–564. DOI: 10.2341/08-048-L.
  39. Garlapati TG, Krithikadatta J, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with short fiber composite used as a core material—an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:464–470. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.02.001.
  40. Garoushi S, Lassila LV, et al. Static and fatigue compression test for particulate filler composite resin with fiber-reinforced composite substructure. Dent Mater 2007;23:17–23. DOI: 10.1016/
  41. Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, et al. Evaluation of load testing of postendodontic restorations in vitro: linear compressive loading, gradual cycling loading and chewing simulation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;74:829–834. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30321.
  42. Shafiei F, Akbarian S. Microleakage of nanofilled resin-modified glass-ionomer/silorane-or methacrylate-based composite sandwich Class II restoration: effect of simultaneous bonding. Operative dentistry 2014;39:E22–E30. DOI: 10.2341/13-020-L.
  43. Shafiei F, Tavangar MS, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:200–206. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.200.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.