Luting of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: Direct composite versus dual-cure luting cement

Abstract

Running short head: Luting of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays 2Corresponding author: Atsushi Kameyama, Division of General Dentistry, Department of Clinical Oral Health Science, Tokyo Dental College, Abstract. The aim of this study was to investigate bonding effectiveness in direct restorations. A two-step self-etch adhesive and a light-cure resin composite was compared with luting with a conventional dual-cure resin cement and a two-step etch and rinse adhesive. Class-I box-type cavities were prepared. Identical ceramic inlays were designed and fabricated with a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) device. The inlays were seated with Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical) or ExciTE F DSC/Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent), each by two operators (five teeth per group). The inlays were stored in water for one week at 37°C, whereafter micro-tensile bond strength testing was conducted. The micro-tensile bond strength of the direct composite was significantly higher than that from conventional luting, and was independent of the operator (P < 0.0001). Pre-testing failures were only observed with the conventional method. High-power light-curing of a direct composite may be a viable alternative to luting lithium disilicate glass-ceramic CAD/CAM restorations.

Effect of luting agent on the load to failure and accelerated-fatigue resistance of lithium disilicate laminate veneers

“…Fractures of ceramic (5.6-11%) and marginal defects (12-20%) were the typical reasons for failure [3,4,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. In addition to surface conditioning, resin cement can play an important role as seen in previous studies where there was a significantly positive effect of a direct composite as a cement in comparison to different dual-polymerized cements [28,29]. For this reason, this study was undertaken in order to compare photo-polymerizing resin composite to a direct composite as a luting material.…”

“…Using micro-tensile adhesion tests, comparison was made between dual-polymerized resin cements and a direct resin composite but their adhesion was not compared for the application of LVs [24,28]. In a study by Sarr et al, direct resin composite using a regular bonding system resulted in higher microtensile bond strength to dentin when compared to the frequently used, etch and rinse, self-etch or self adhesive resin cements [24].…”

“…Furthermore, in some studies, with photo-polymerized resin materials increased bond strength was reported when compared to dual-polymerized resin cements [22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. In a study by Kameyama et al [23], a dual-polymerized resin cement was compared with a direct composite as a cement for ceramic inlays in a micro-tensile bond-strength test.…”

Repair Bond Strength of a Resin Composite to Plasma-Treated or UV-Irradiated CAD/CAM Ceramic Surface

“…Several studies have reported the bonding performances of these materials to enamel and dentin [15,16]. However, no studies have evaluated the repair of CAD/CAM ceramic blocks or the related bonding efficacy.…”

“…The width and thickness of each specimen was measured to the nearest 0.01 mm using a digital caliper (CD-15 CPX, Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan), which was used to determine the microtensile bond strength (µTBS, MPa) by dividing the recorded force (N) at the time of fracture by the bond area (mm 2 ). If a specimen failed before proper testing, a bond strength of 0 MPa was used for statistical analyses [14,15]. The actual number of pre-testing failures was explicitly noted, as well.…”