The bonding durability of resin cements

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2007;32(4):343-355

Publication date (electronic) : 2007 July 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.4.343

Min-Woo Cho , Sang-Hyuk Park , Jong-Ryul Kim , Kyoung-Kyu Choi

Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Kyoung-Kyu Choi. Professor of Division of Dentistry, Graduate school of KyungHee University, 1, Hoegi Dong, Dongdaemun Gu, Seoul, Korea, 130-701. Tel: 82-2-958-9337, choikkyu@khu.ac.kr

Received 2007 May 07; Revised 2007 May 10; Accepted 2007 May 14.

Abstract

The objectives of this study was to evaluate the durability of 4 resin cements by means of microtensile bond strength test combined with thermocycling method and fractographic FE-SEM analysis.

Experimental groups were prepared according to thermocycling (0, 1,000, 5,000) and the kind of resin cements, those were Variolink II, Multilink, Panavia F 2.0, Rely X Unicem. Flat dentin surfaces were created on mid-coronal dentin of extracted third molars. Then fresh dentin surface was grounded with 320-grit silicon carbide abrasive papers to create uniform smear layers. Indirect composite block (Tescera, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) was fabricated (12 × 12 × 6 mm³). It's surface for bonding to tooth was grounded with silicon carbide abrasive papers from 180- to 600-grit serially, then sandblasted with 20 - 50 µm alumina oxide. According to each manufacturer's instruction, dentin surface was treated and indirect composite block was luted on it using each resin cement. For Rely X Unicem, dentin surface was not treated. The bonded tooth-resin block were stored in distilled water at 37℃ for 24 hours. After thermocycling, the bonded tooth-resin block was sectioned occluso-gingivally to 1.0 mm thick serial slabs using an Isomet slow-speed saw (Isomet, Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL, USA). These sectioned slabs were further sectioned to 1.0 × 1.0 mm² composite-dentin beams. The specimens were tested with universal testing machine (EZ-Test, Shimadzu, Japan) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min with maximum load of 500 N. The data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple comparison test at p ≤ 0.05 level.

Within the limited results, we conclude as follows;

1. The bond strength of Variolink II was evaluated the highest among experimental groups and was significantly decreased after 1,000 thermocycling (p < 0.05).

2. The bond strength of Multilink was more affected by thermocycling than the other experimental groups and significantly decreased after 1,000 thermocycling (p < 0.05).

3. Panavia F 2.0 and Rely X Unicem showed the gradually decreased tendency of microtensile bond strength according to thermocycling but there was no significant difference (p > 0.05).

4. Adhesive based-resin cements showed lower bond strength with or without thermocycling than composite based-resin cements.

5. Variolink II & Multilink showed high bond strength and mixed failure, which was occurred with a thin layer of luting resin cement before thermocycling and gradually increased adhesive failure along the dentin surface after thermocycling.

The bonding performance of resin cement can be affected by application procedure and chemical composition. Composite based-resin cement showed higher bond strength and durability than adhesive based-resin cement.

Keywords: Bonding Durability; Resin Cement; Variolink II; Multilink; Panavia F 2.0; Rely X Unicem

References

1. Manhart J, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Chen HY, Hickel R. A 2-year clinical study of composite and ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 2000. 4192–198.

2. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain Veneers; a review of the literature. J Dent 2000. 28163–177.

3. Mitchell CA, Abbariki M, Orr JF. The influence of luting cement on the probabilities of survival and modes of failure of cast full-coveraged crowns. Dent Mater 2000. 16198–206.

4. Knox J, Kralj B, Hübsch PF, Middleton J, Jones ML. An evaluation of the influence of orthodontic adhesive on the stresses generated in a bonded bracket finite element model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001. 11943–53.

5. el-Mowafy O, Rubo MH. Retention of a posterior resin-bonded fixed partial denture with a modified design: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2000. 13425–431.

6. Carvalho RM, Pegoraro TA, Tay FR, Pegoraro LF, Pashley DH. Adhesive permeability affects coupling of resin cements that utiliseself-etching primers to dentine. J Dent 2004. 3255–65.

7. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 2000. 1360D–76D.

8. Hasegawa EA, Boyer DB, Chan DC. Hardening of dual-cured cements under composite resin inlays. J Prosthet Dent 1991. 66187–192.

9. el-Badrawy WA, el-Mowafy OM. Chemical versus dual curing of resin inlay cements. J Prosthet Dent 1995. 73515–524.

10. Pimenta LA, Amaral CM, Bedran de Castro AK, Ritter AV. Stability of dentin bond strengths using different bonding techniques after 12 months: total-etch, deproteinization and self-etching. Oper Dent 2004. 29592–598.

11. Paul SJ, Welter DA, Ghazi M, Pashley D. Nanoleakage at the dentin adhesivevs. microtensile bond strength. Oper Dent 1999. 24181–188.

12. Giannini M, Seixas CA, Reis AF, Pimenta LA. Six-month storage-time evaluation of one-bottle adhesive systems to dentin. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003. 1543–49.

13. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yoshiyama M. Two mondes of nanoleakage expression in single-step adhesives. J Dent Res 2002. 81472–476.

14. Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Pereira PNR, Kanemura N, Morigami M, Tagami J, Pashley D. Long-term Durability of dentine bonds made with a self-etching primer. J Dent Res 1999. 78906–911.

15. Kato G, Nakabayashi N. The durability of adhesion to phosphoric acid etched,wet dentine substrates. Dent Mater 1998. 14347–352.

16. Hakimeh S, Vaidyanathan J, Houpt ML, Vaidyanathan TK, Hagen SV. Microleakage of compomer class V restorations: effect of load cycling, thermal cycling, and cavity shape differences. J Prosthet Dent 2000. 83194–203.

17. Wendt SL, Mcinnes PM, Dickinson GL. The effect of thermocycling in microleakage analysis. Dent Mater 1992. 8181–184.

18. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H, Moore BK. Influence of thermal cycling on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 1998. 11118–122.

19. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res 2000. 791385–1391.

20. Krejci I, Lutz F. Mixed class V restorations: the potentials of dentine bonding. J Dent 1990. 18263–270.

21. Suh BI, Feng L, Pashley DH, Tay FR. 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. 5267–282.

22. Attal JP, Asmussen E, Degrange M. Effects of surface treatment on the free surface energy of dentin. Dent Mater 1994. 10259–264.

23. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater 2001. 17296–308.

24. Frankenberger R, Strobel WO, Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Petschelt A. The effect of six years of water storage on resin composite bonding to human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004. 6925–32.

25. Armstrong SR, Vargas MA, Fang Q, Laffoon JE. Microtensile bond strength of a total-etch 3-step, total-etch 2-step, self-etch 2-step, and a self-etch 1-step dentin bonding system through 15-month water storage. J Adhes Dent 2003. 547–56.

26. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Dental adhesives of the future. J Adhes Dent 2002. 491–103.

27. Brackett MG, Dib A, Brackett WW, Estrada BE, Reyes AA. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations. Oper Dent 2002. 27112–116.

28. Türkün SL. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 2003. 31527–534.

29. Takahashi A, Inoue S, Kawamoto C, Ominato R, Tanaka T, Sato Y, Pereira PNR, Sano H. In vivo long-term durability of the bond to dentin using two adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 2002. 4151–159.

30. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H, Moore BK. Influence of thermal cycling on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 1998. 11118–122.

31. Nikaido T, Kunzelman KH, Chen H, Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Cox CF, Hickel R, Tagami J. Evaluation of thermal cycling and mechanical loading on bond strength of a self-etching primer system to dentin. Dent Mater 2002. 18269–275.

32. De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004. 20963–971.

33. Yang B, Ludwig K, Adelung R, Kern M. Microtensile bond strength of three luting resins to human regional dentin. Dent Mater 2006. 2245–46.

34. Kim DW, Park SJ, Choi KK. Compatibility of self-etching dentin adhesives with resin luting cements. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30493–504.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Schematic presentation of thermocycling method.

Figure 2

Schematic presentation of µTBS testing.

Figure 3

Microtensile bond strength of Variolink II.

Figure 4

Microtensile bond strength of Multilink.

Figure 5

Microtensile bond strength of Panavia F 2.0.

Figure 6

Microtensile bond strength of Rely X Unicem.

Figure 7

Comparison of µTBS for each experimental group.

Figure 8

FE-SEM photograph illustrating the resin/dentin interface (× 1000).

a. Cross-sectioned image of Variolink II. The thickness of resin cement was approximately 30 µm, hybrid layer was 10 µm, and the adhesive layer was likely thick. Uniform resin tags could be noticed. b. Cross-sectioned image of Multilink. The short and uncertain resin tags were formed. Hybrid layer was not certain. The thickness of resin cement was approximately 50 µm. c. Cross-sectioned image of Pavavia F 2.0. The thickness of resin cement was approximately 30 µm, slender resin tags were formed and hybrid layer was not certain. d. Cross-sectioned image of Rely X Unicem. The thickness of resin cement was approximately 15 µm and hybrid layer and resin tag were not formed. Notice slightly detached interface between resin cement and dentin. (RC : Resin cement, AD : Adhesive layer, HL : Hybrid layer, RT : Resin tag, D : Dentin, R : Tescera composite resin)