Citation Information :
Aida N, Koi K, Amaya-Pajares SP, Furusawa M, Watanabe H. Bond Strength of Two Resin Cements with Leucite-reinforced Ceramic Using Different Bonding Agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (11):859-863.
Aim: To compare the bond strength of two resin cements to leucite-reinforced ceramics using three different boding agents and evaluate the compatibility of bonding agents.
Materials and methods: Twenty extracted sound human molars were sectioned horizontally 2–3 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). CAD/CAM ceramic blocks for inLab were also sectioned to create 4 mm thick and bonded to the dentin. The adhesive groups assigned were divided into four adhesive groups: Group I: Variolink II dual-cure resin cement and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus adhesive, group II: Multilink Automix dual-cure resin cement and Multilink primers, group III: Multilink Automix and Clearfil SE bond 2 (CSE2) adhesive, group IV: Multilink Automix and CSE2 with light curing after adhesive application. Five specimens of each group were sectioned perpendicular to obtain six microsticks of 1 × 1 mm width from each sample. Microtensile bond strength data were expressed in MPa. Fracture modes (FrMs) analyzed for the surfaces were divided into six patterns. Microtensile bond strength data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α = 0.05). T-test was performed at the 5% significance level to analyze groups III and IV with and without light curing.
Results: Group I showed the highest μTBS average of 13.67 MPa, group IV showed 12.26 MPa, group III showed 12.15 MPa, and group II showed the lowest average of 10.84 MPa. No significant differences were found between the bonding agents. However, the six types of failure modes, although all observed, were characterized by the adhesive system: Type I: adhesive failure of laminated dentin and ceramic; type II: adhesive failure of laminated ceramic; type III: adhesive failure of laminated dentin; type IV: cohesive failure of luting agent; type V: cohesive failure of dentin, and type VI: mixed failure of adhesion and cohesion. As a result, the FrM most commonly observed was the adhesive failure at the luting cement-ceramic block interface.
Conclusion: The combination of resin cements and bonding agents did not significantly affect the bond strength of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations and dentin.
Clinical significance: Several universal bonding agents are currently available for direct and indirect bonding, and using the same bonding agent for direct and indirect restorations could simplify inventory and benefit routine clinical practice.
Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26(3):101–121. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21.
Christensen GJ. Is the rush to all-ceramic crowns justified. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145(2):192–194. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2013.19.
Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, et al. From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(1):7–34. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a43994.
Sabatini C, Campillo M, Hoelz S, et al. Cross-compatibility of methacrylate-based resin composites and etch-and-rinse one-bottle adhesives. Oper Dent 2012;37(1):37–44. DOI: 10.2341/11- 095-L.
Kim YK, Chun JN, Kwon PC, et al. Polymerization kinetics of dual-curing adhesive systems when used solely or in conjunction with chemically-cured resin cement. J Adhes Dent 2013;15(5):453–459. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a29537.
Perdigão J, Araujo E, Ramos RQ, et al. Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(1):51–68. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12692.
Price R, Roulet J. The value of consensus conferences: Peer review by 50 key opinion leaders! Stoma Edu J 2018;5(4):202–204. DOI: 10.25241/STOMAEDUJ.2018.5(4).EDIT.1.
Dong CC, McComb D, Anderson JD, et al. Effect of mode of polymerization of bonding agent on shear bond strength of autocured resin composite luting cements. J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69(4):229–234. PMID: 12662461.
Kwon SJ, Park JK, Son SA. Shear bond strength between universal adhesives with various pH and dual-cured resin cements. Korean J Dent Mater 2018;45(4):301–310. DOI: 10.14815/kjdm.2018.45.4.301.
Suh BI, Feng L, Pashley DH, et al. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part III. Effect of acidic resin monomers. J Adhes Dent 2003;5(4):267–282.
Tay FR, King NM, Suh BI, et al. Effect of delayed activation of light-cured resin composites on bonding of all-in-one adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(3):207–225. PMID: 11803709.
Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, et al. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part I. Single-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003;5(1):27–40. PMID: 12729081.
Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, et al. Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 2010;26(2):e50–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155.
Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, et al. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: A review. Dent Mater 1995;11(2):117–125. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80046-8.
Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, et al. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2007;23(1):71–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.12.002.
Kwong SM, Cheung GS, Kei LH, et al. Micro-tensile bond strengths to sclerotic dentin using a self-etching and a total-etching technique. Dent Mater 2002;18(5):359–369. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00051-3.
Souza EM, De Munck J, Pongprueksa P, et al. Correlative analysis of cement-dentin interfaces using an interfacial fracture toughness and micro-tensile bond strength approach. Dent Mater 2016;32(12): 1575–1585. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.031.
