Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Influence of adhesive application on shear bond strength of the resin cement to indirect resin composite


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Influence of adhesive application on shear bond strength of the resin cement to indirect resin composite

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2008;33(5):419-427
Publication date (electronic) : 2008 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.419
Mi-Hae Song, Su-Jung Park, Hyun-Gu Cho, Yun-Chan Hwang, Won-Mann Oh, In-Nam Hwang
Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, DSRI, Chonnam National University, Korea.
Corresponding Author: In-Nam Hwang. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, 5 Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-757, Korea. Tel: 82-62-220-4443, Fax: 82-62-225-8387, hinso@jnu.ac.kr
Received 2008 April 22; Revised 2008 May 20; Accepted 2008 July 17.

Abstract

This study analyzed the influence of dental adhesive/primer on the bond strength between indirect resin composite and the resin cement.

Seventy disc specimens of indirect resin composite (Tescera Dentin, Bisco) were fabricated. And bonding area of all specimens were sandblasted and silane treated for one minute. The resin cements were used with or without application of adhesive/primer to bonding area of indirect resin restoration: Variolink-II (Ivoclar-Vivadent): Exite DSC, Panavia-F (Kuraray): ED-Primer, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE): Single-Bond, Duolink (Bisco): One-step, Mulitlink (Ivoclar-Vivadent): Multilinh Primer.

Shear bond strength was measured by Instron universal testing machine.

Adhesive application improved shear bond strength (p < 0.05). But Variolink II and Panavia-F showed no statistically significant difference according to the adhesive application.

With the above results, when resin inlay is luted by resin cement it seems that application of dental adhesive/primer is necessary in order to improve the bond strength.

Keywords: Resin inlay; Resin cement; Shear bond strength; Surface treatment; Primer; Bonding agent

References

1. O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection 2002. 3rd edth ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 377.
2. Irie M, Suzuki K. Current luting cements; marginal gap formation of composite inlay and their mechanical properties. Dent Mater 2001. 17347–353.
3. Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 2000. 1360D–76D.
4. Christensen GJ. Acceptability of alternatives for conservative restoration of posterior teeth. J Esthet Dent 1995. 7228–232.
5. Burke FJ. The effect of variations in bonding procedure on fracture resistance of dentin-bonded all-ceramic crowns. Quintessence Int 1995. 26293–300.
6. Jensen ME, Sheth JJ, Tolliver D. Etched-porcelain resin-bonded full veneer crowns: in vitro fracture resistance. Compendium 1989. 10336–338.
7. Jacobsen PH, Rees JS. Luting agent for ceramic and polymeric inlays and onlays. Int Dent J 1992. 42145–149.
8. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Carrilho MR. Pilot study on the early shear strength of porcelain dentin bonding using dual cure cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999. 81285–289.
9. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Mechanical properties of resin cements with different activation mode. J Oral Rehabil 2002. 29257–262.
10. Hahn P, Attin T, Grofke M, Hellwig E. Influence of resin cement viscosity on microleakage of ceramic inlays. Dent Mater 2001. 17191–196.
11. Kitasako Y, Burrow MF, Katahira N, Tagami J. Shear bond strength of three resin cements to dentin over 3 years in vitro. J Dent 2001. 29139–144.
12. Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light cured adhesives and chemical cured composites. Dent Mater 2001. 17542–556.
13. Yanagawa T, Finger WJ. Relationship between degree of polymerization of resin composite and bond strength to Gluma-treated dentin. Am J Dent 1994. 7157–160.
14. Kelsey WP 3rd, Triolo PT, Blankenau RJ, Kelsey MN, Ortmeier C, Hauser D. Bond strengths to enamel and dentin with indirect and direct resin composites. Am J Dent 1996. 9105–108.
15. Nikaido T, Nakajima M, Higashi T, Kanemura N, Pereira PN, Tagami J. Shear bond strengths of a single-step bonding system to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater J 1997. 1640–47.
16. Watanabe EK, Yamashita A, Yatani H, Ishikawa K, Suzuki K. Improvement in the tensile bond strength between resin cement and dentin surfaces after temporary cement application. Int J Prosthodont 1998. 11203–211.
17. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Effect of cross-sectional surface area on bond strengths between resin and dentin. Dent Mater 1998. 14120–128.
18. Davies B, Dunne SM, Mokhfari M, Nicholson J. A comparison of the shear bond strength of composite resin bonded by a fourth and fifth generation dentin adhesive to bovine teeth. Prim Dent Care 1999. 6103–106.
19. Mondragon E, Soderholm KJ. Shear strength of dentin and bonded composites. J Adhes Dent 2001. 3227–236.
20. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2001. 3237–245.
21. Suliman JF, Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J. Effect of surface treatment and bonding agents on bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1993. 70118–120.
22. Roulet JF, Soderholm KJ, Longmate J. Effect of treatment and storage conditions on ceramic/composite bond strength. J Dent Res 1995. 74381–387.
23. Ozden AN, Akaltan F, Can G. Effect of surface treatments of porcelain on the shear bond strength of applied dual-cure cement. J Prosthet Dent 1994. 7285–88.
24. Thurmond JW, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Effect of porcelain surface treatments on bond strength of composite resin bonded to porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1994. 72355–359.
25. Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 1996. 76119–124.
26. Kamada K, Yoshida K, Atsuta M. Effect of ceramic surface treatments on the bond of four resin luting agents to a ceramic material. J Prosthet Dent 1998. 79508–513.
27. Madani M, Chu FC, McDonald AV, Smales RJ. Effect of surface treatments on shear bond strengths between a resin cement and an alumina core. J Prosthet Dent 2000. 83644–647.
28. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res 1995. 741591–1596.
29. Jackson RD, Ferguson RW. An asthetic bonded inlay/onlay technique for posterior teeth. Quintessence Int 1990. 217–12.
30. Sheth PJ. Comparative evaluation of three resin inlay techniques: microleakage studies. Quintessence Int 1989. 20831–836.
31. Craig RG. In : Vanherle G, Smith DC, eds. Overview of posterior composite resins for use in clinical practice. Posterior Composite Resin Dental Restorative Materials 1985. St. Paul: 3M Co; 199–211.
32. Lopes LMP, Leitao JGM, Douglas WM. Effect of a new resin inlay/onlay restorative material on cuspal reinforcement. Quintessence Int 1991. 22641–645.
33. Kang HS, Choi HY. A Study on the Marginal Leakage of Class II Composite Resin Inlay. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 1992. 17191–205.
34. Douglas WH, Fields RP, Fundingsland J. A comparison between the microleakage of direct and indirect composite restorative systems. J Dent 1989. 17184–188.
35. Kanca J 3rd. Composite resin luting materials: A rationale for the "90s". J Esthet Dent 1989. 1105–109.
36. Heymann HO. Indirect composite resin veneers: an alternative, Porcelain laminate veneers 1998. Quintessence books; 126–133.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2008 The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
(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

Figure 1

Diagram of the prepared specimens.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Shear bond strength of the five resin cements to indirect resin restorations according to the surface treatment.

*Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05), VL: VL + silane, VL-B: VL + silane + Bonding agents

Figure 3

Figure 3

Shear bond strength of the five resin cements to silane treated indirect resin restorations (p < 0.01).

*Statistically no significant difference.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Shear bond strength of the five resin cements to indirect resin restorations treated with silane and adhesives or primers.

Table 1

Resin cements and indirect composite system used in study

Table 1

All information provided by manufacturers. Bis-GMA: bis-phenol-A-diglycidyl methacrylate, UDMA: urethane dimethacrylate, TEGDMA: triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, HEMA: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, MDP: methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate

Table 2

Conditioning agents used in study

Table 2

All information provided by manufacturers. Bis-GMA: bis-phenol-A-diglycidyl methacrylate, UDMA: urethane dimethacrylate, TEGDMA: triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, HEMA: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, MDP: methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate, BPDM: biphenyl dimethacrylate

Table 3

Shear bond strength of the five resin cements to indirect resin restorations (n=7)

Table 3

Table 4

Failure mode distribution

Table 4

S : silane treated only

S+P : Treated with silane and primers

S+A : Treated with silane and adhesives