Are self-adhesive resin cements a valid alternative to conventional resin cements? A laboratory study of the long-term bond strength

Hitz, Thomas; Stawarczyk, Bogna; Fischer, Jens; Hämmerle, Christoph H.F.; Sailer, Irena

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.006

Cited by 105 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No entanto, de acordo com os estudos de outros autores, não se encontrou diferença de resistência de união em relação ao tipo de cimento utilizado (resinoso convencional ou autoadesivo) para a maioria dos tratamentos superficiais testados 6,18,19 . Porém, os resultados são muito variáveis, mostrandose, em alguns estudos, superiores 20,21 , e, em outros, inferiores, em relação aos cimentos resinosos convencionais 16,22 . Esta variação ocorre, provavelmente, pela diferença na composição dos agentes cimentantes e pela metodologia empregada.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Resistência de união de diferentes cimentos resinosos a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio

Mazioli

Peçanha

Daroz

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: O sucesso de restaurações indiretas depende de uma adequada união entre o cimento e o substrato dental. Portanto, a seleção e o conhecimento das características dos agentes cimentantes são importantes para a retenção da restauração indireta. Objetivo: Avaliar a resistência de união de dois cimentos resinosos diferentes à cerâmica de dissilicato de lítio. Metodologia: Dois grupos experimentais foram confeccionados: cimento resinoso convencional (Grupo CRC) e cimento resinoso autoadesivo (Grupo CRA). Para isso, dez discos de cerâmica de dissilicato de lítio (10 mm) foram pré-fabricados e, sobre cada disco, foram confeccionados quatro postes de cimento (0,7×1,0 mm), obtendo-se um total de 20 amostras de cada tipo de cimento. Os discos tiveram o mesmo tratamento de superfície para os dois grupos, que é padrão para as cerâmicas ricas em sílica, de acordo com o protocolo estabelecido pelo fabricante. As amostras foram submetidas ao teste de microcisalhamento para avaliar a resistência de união entre o cimento e a cerâmica. Posteriormente, o modo de falha foi analisado em microscópio ótico. Resultado: Os dados obtidos foram submetidos a teste estatístico. Foi observado que o grupo CRC apresentou maiores valores de resistência de união (15,29 MPa) em relação ao grupo CRA (12,41 MPa). Na análise do modo de falha, nenhuma amostra obteve fratura do tipo adesiva. Em ambos os grupos, CRC (75%) e CRA (65%), obtiveram-se mais falhas do tipo mista, seguidas pela falha coesiva. Conclusão: Ambos os cimentos apresentaram adesão à cerâmica. O cimento resinoso convencional apresentou maior adesão a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio que o cimento resinoso autoadesivo.Descritores: Cerâmicas; resistência ao cisalhamento; cimentação; cimentos de resina; prótese dentária. AbstractIntroduction: The success of indirect restorations depends on the union between cement and dental substrate. Therefore, the selection and knowledge of the characteristics of cement is important for the retention of indirect restoration. Objective: Is to evaluate the bond strength of two different resin cements to ceramic lithium disilicate. Methodology: Two experimental groups were made: conventional resin cement (CRC Group) and self-adhesive resin cement (CRA Group). With this, 10 lithium disilicate ceramics discs (10 mm) were prefabricated and on each disc were made 04 cement posts (0.7×1.0 mm), yielding a total of 20 samples of each type of cement. The disks had the same surface treatment for both groups, which is standard for the rich silica ceramic according to the protocol established by the manufacturer. The samples were submitted to microshear test to evaluate the bond strength between the cement and ceramics. Subsequently, the fail mode was analyzed in an optical microscope. Result: Data were subjected to statistical analysis. It was observed that the CRC group had a higher bond strength (15.29 MPa) compared to CRA group (12.41 MPa). In the analysis of fail mode, neither samples obtained adhesive fracture. In both groups, CRC (75...

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Resistência de união de diferentes cimentos resinosos a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio

Mazioli

Peçanha

Daroz

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some of the self-adhesive resin cements had similar values of bond strength to the conventional cement Panavia, others showed lower values before and after aging, in the long term 16 . Not all self-adhesive resin cements can be a valid alternative to conventional cement for binding silica based glass-ceramic to dentin 17 . Regarding the Multilink Sprint, although no statistical difference was showed for the two periods studied, there was a numerical increase in adhesive resistance after 1 year of storage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Durability of the adhesive cementation to the dentin substract

Braz

Durão

Gomes

et al. 2016

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the union stability of resin cements to the dental substract through microtensile bond strength (µTBS) analysis and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). G6 = 11.01 (A) and after 1 year: G1 = 9.75 (A), G2 = 11.73 (A); G3 = 20.10 (B); G5 = 6.80 (A); G6 = 21.09 (B). All G4 group presented pretest failures. Methods Fifty /Kuraray without pre-treatment and G6-Multilink Sprint/Ivoclar-Vivadent which were adhered to its respective indirect resin composite restoration, (G1-Clearfil AP-X/Kuraray; G2-Filtek Z350/3M ESPE; G3-Gradia Direct X™/GC; G4-Aelite™/ Bisco; G5-Clearfil AP-X/ Kuraray; G6-Tetric Ceram/ Ivoclar-Vivadent). The resin blocks were cemented and the sticks were obtained by tooth, with an area of adhesive interface of 0,8mm² (±0,2). Results The mean values, submitted to Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 5%) were in MPa after 24 hours: G1 = 9.66 (A), G2 = 13.37 (A); G3 = 15.89 (A); G5 = 4.18 (B); ConclusionDuring the one year period, with the exception of BisCem, the self-adhesive resin cements were a favorable alternative for the adhesive cementation, standing out among these, the G-Cem and Multilink Sprint.

show abstract

“…The adhesion to dentin using contemporary bonding agents and selfadhesive resin cements seems to be more stable than previous generations of both types of these resin-based materials 9,[22][23][24] . This improvement is important for the durability of direct and indirect esthetic restorations, because research has shown that adhesive restorations become more reliable and predictable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, such advantages are not relevant if the resin cement does not perform adequately in terms of sealing and bonding. Studies have shown that bond strengths of some self-adhesive resin cements are lower than those of traditional resin cements [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] . On the other hand, resin coating could improve bond strength of conventional resin cements and its application may also potentially improve bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of resin coating on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of resin coating (COA) on dentin bond strength (BS) of five resin cements (RC). Ten groups were tested, according to RC and COA combinations. RCs were applied onto prepolymerized resin discs, which were bonded to dentin surfaces. Teeth were stored in water for 24 h, subjected to 5,000 thermocycles and sectioned to obtain beams, which were tested in tension. The COA increased the BS for Panavia F2.0, RelyX Unicem, and RelyX Unicem 2, whereas no changes in BS were observed for two other RCs; Clearfil SA Cement, which showed the lowest BS among groups with COA and G-Cem, which showed the highest BS among RCs without COA. COA can increase the BS of RC depending on the type of RC.

show abstract

Are self-adhesive resin cements a valid alternative to conventional resin cements? A laboratory study of the long-term bond strength

Cited by 105 publications

References 24 publications

Resistência de união de diferentes cimentos resinosos a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio

Resistência de união de diferentes cimentos resinosos a cerâmica à base de dissilicato de lítio

Durability of the adhesive cementation to the dentin substract

Influence of resin coating on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About