A comprehensive in vitro study on the performance of two different strategies to simplify adhesive bonding

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the bonding performance and mechanical properties of two different resin composite cements using simplified adhesive bonding strategies.Materials and methods: Shear bond strength of two resin composite cements (an adhesive cement: Panavia V5 [PV5] and a self-adhesive cement: RelyX Universal [RUV]) to human enamel, dentin, and a variety of restorative materials (microfilled composite, composite, polymer-infiltrated ceramic, feldspar ceramic, lithium disilicate and zirconia) was measured. Thermocycle aging was performed with selected material combinations.Results: For both cements, the highest shear bond strength to dentin was achieved when using a primer (PV5: 18.0 ± 4.2 MPa, RUV: 18.2 ± 3.3 MPa). Additional etching of dentin reduced bond strength for RUV (12.5 ± 4.9 MPa). On enamel, PV5 achieved the highest bond strength when the primer was used (18.0 ± 3.1 MPa), while for RUV etching of enamel and priming provided best results (21.2 ± 6.6 MPa). Shear bond strength of RUV to restorative materials was superior to PV5. Bonding to resinbased materials was predominantly observed for RUV.Conclusions: While use of RUV with the selective-etch technique is slightly more labor intensive than PV5, RUV (with its universal primer) displayed a high-bonding potential to all tested restorative materials, especially to resin.Clinical significance: For a strong adhesion to the tooth substrate, PV5 (with its tooth primer) is to be preferred because etching with phosphoric acid is not required. However, when using a wide range of varying restorative materials, RUV with its universal primer seems to be an adequate option.

In Vitro Investigation of Material Combinations for Meso- and Suprastructures in a Biomimetic Approach to Restore One-Piece Zirconia Implants

“…Since a relatively new resin cement system (RUV) was chosen, comparison with other studies that have conducted retention force tests on zirconia implants is difficult. In contrast to the present findings, previously no effect of artificial aging on the bond strength of SBU to CT was observed [ 32 ]. However, in that investigation only thermal cycling was applied, whereas in the present study an additional mechanical stress by chewing simulation was employed.…”

“…Due to traumatization of the surrounding structures intraorally, pre-treatment of the implant abutment by sandblasting with Al 2 O 3 was omitted in this study to mimic a clinical situation. As primers containing methacrylates with phosphate groups such as 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) are known to strengthen the long-term bond to zirconia, together with the high adhesion to CT [ 34 ], the RUV system was chosen for its simplicity of use and the presence of MDP-equivalence in the primer SBU [ 32 , 37 , 38 ]. CT was chosen as material for the mesostructure due to its low elastic modulus, its easy machinability, a good bonding performance with SBU [ 31 ], and the fact that it has been on the market as a material for temporary crowns for decades.…”

“…However, a suitable material would be CAD-Temp, a microfilled resin composite used to fabricate temporary crowns (Vita, Bad Säckingen, Germany). For bonding, Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive (3M, Neuss, Germany) is currently the only primer available that is dual-curing, contains filler, and is able to bond to polymer materials, silicate, and oxide ceramics [ 32 ]. Different materials might be suitable for fabricating the suprastructure, which can be cemented on the mesostructure in a traditional way with a resin composite cement.…”

Progress in Dental Adhesive Materials

“…While 1 URC demonstrated bond strength to coronal and radicular dentin comparable to multistep and self-adhesive resin cements (Josic, Mazzitelli, Maravic, Radovic, et al 2022; Rohr et al 2022), another performed comparably (Yoshihara et al 2020) or worse than its predecessor (Oda et al 2022) when used without the pertinent adhesive system. Similarly, while 1 URC system exhibited improved bond strength to composite blocks (Rohr et al 2022), another demonstrated inferior outcomes when compared to a self-adhesive cement placed after a silane primer (Takahashi et al 2022). Further, it is important to note that the bond strength of URCs to enamel is lower at baseline (Atalay et al 2022) or after artificial aging (Rohr et al 2022) compared to several multistep or self-adhesive resin cements.…”

“…In another representative of the group, a proprietary long-chain silane monomer was introduced in the base paste of the cement itself, which does not contain 10-MDP, enabling the preservation of its chemical structure (commercial literature). These modifications possibly underlie the demonstrated improvement of bonding properties to composite, ceramics, and zirconia compared to several competitors (Atalay et al 2022; Rohr et al 2022) when used in conjunction with the recommended UA or a comparable bond strength in self-adhesive mode to a competitor that requires a separate silane application (Yoshihara et al 2020). The performance of URCs is not only material group related but also material specific.…”