SUMMARY Objective This in vitro study evaluated the influence of different cleansing techniques on the bond strength of self-adhesive cement to dentin. Methods and Materials A total of 33 noncarious human molars were sectioned mesiodistally and embedded in chemically cured resin with the buccal or lingual surfaces facing upward. Superficial dentin was exposed and resin disk provisional restorations were cemented to the dentin surfaces with noneugenol provisional cement and were stored in distilled water at 37°C. After seven days, the provisional restorations were removed and 13 specimens were randomly assigned to each of the five groups (n=13), according to the following cleansing treatments: G1—excavator (control); G2—0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate; G3—40% polyacrylic acid; G4—mixture of flour pumice and water; and G5—sandblasting with 50 μm aluminum oxide particles at a pressure of 87 psi. Resin composite disks (Filtek Supreme Plus, 3M ESPE Dental Products, St Paul, MN, USA) 4.7 (±0.1) mm in diameter and 3.0 (±0.5) mm in height were cemented with self-adhesive cement (RelyX Unicem, 3M ESPE), photocured, and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Shear bond strength testing was conducted using a universal test machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure. Results Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey-B rank order test. Sandblasting with aluminum oxide (11.32 ± 1.70 MPa) produced significantly higher shear bond strength values compared with any other treatment groups (p<0.05). No significant differences were found between G1-control (7.74 ± 1.72 MPa), G2-chlorhexidine (6.37 ± 1.47 MPa), and G4-pumice (7.33 ± 2.85 MPa) (p<0.05).

No abstract

The adhesively bonded ceramic restorations presented satisfactory results after five years of clinical service. There was no significant difference between ceramic systems regarding survival. SUMMARYThis study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered Duceram (Dentsply-Degussa) and pressable IPS Empress (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eighty-six restorations were placed by a single operator in 35 patients with a median age of 33 years. The restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at baseline, and at one, two, three, and five years using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the five-year recall, 26 patients were evaluated (74.28%), totalling 62 (72.09%) restorations. Four IPS restorations were fractured, two restorations presented secondary caries (one from IPS and one from Duceram), and two restorations showed unacceptable defects at the restoration margin and needed replacement (one restoration from each ceramic system). A general success rate

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different primer/resin luting agent combinations and alumina air abrasion on the adhesion to zirconia. Eighty blocks (4×4×3 mm) of Lava Frame Zirconia (3M ESPE) were produced and randomly assigned into eight groups (n=10) according to two zirconia surface treatments (untreated or air abrasion with 50-μm alumina particles) and four luting systems (SU: Scotchbond Universal/RelyX Unicem 2; ZP: Z-Prime Plus/Duo-link Universal; MB: Monobond Plus/Variolink II; and AP: Alloy Primer/ED Primer II/Panavia F 2.0). After the conditioning and primer applications, resin luting agents were manipulated and applied on the zirconia, using a matrix, to form a cylinder (2 mm in diameter×2 mm high), followed by photoactivation for 40 seconds. After that, the specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 120 days and then submitted to shear bond strength testing, followed by failure mode evaluation under an optical microscope (30×). A two-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (α=0.05) were used for data analysis. Alumina air abrasion (Al) promoted higher bond values for the three luting systems, except for SU, which showed the best results without air abrasion, while with air abrasion, Al-SU, Al-ZP, and Al-MB presented higher values compared to Al-AP. We concluded that the alumina air abrasion of zirconia surfaces seemed to be dispensable for the SU group, while air abrasion (topographical alterations) enhanced the adhesion of the ZP, MB, and AP groups.

No abstract