Early Hardness of Self‐Adhesive Resin Cements Cured under Indirect Resin Composite Restorations

Giráldez, Isabel; Ceballos, Laura; Garrido, Miguel Angel Amaró; Rodrı́guez, J.

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00408.x

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, pretreatment of the dentin facilitates to create a real hybrid layer which occurred with PAN but not with RXU [4]. Furthermore, differences in shrinkage behaviour [24], physical properties [25,26], pH values, and film thickness [22] of different self-adhesive resin cements were shown in a number of studies. In a study by Kitzmüller [24], shrinkage behaviour was depended on the temperature of the cement and the curing mode.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the shear bond strengths of six self-adhesive resin cements to dentin and to glass-ceramic, 24h and long-term-aged, are similar to the one of a conventional resin cement. METHODS: Human molars (N=168, n=12 per group) and silicabased glass-ceramic specimens (N=168, n=12 per group) were embedded in acrylic resin and randomly divided into 28 groups. The following resin cements were luted according to the manufacturers' instructions: Clearfil SA (CSA), G-Cem (GCM), SmartCem2 (SMC), SpeedCEM (SPC), RelyX Unicem (RXU), RelyX Unicem2 (RXU2) and Panavia21 (control group, PAN). Shear bond strength was measured initially (24h of water storage 37°C) and after aging (24,000 thermal cycles, 5/55°C). The failure types (adhesive, and cohesive) were evaluated after debonding. The shear bond strength values were analyzed using three-way and one-way ANOVA, followed by a post hoc Scheffé and two-sample Student's t-tests. RESULTS: RXU, RXU2 and GCM showed similar after 24h and aged shear bond strength to dentin as the control group. CSA, SMC and SPC exhibited significantly lower values. Before aging, none of the bond strength values to glass-ceramic differed significantly from the other. After thermocycling, GCM showed higher results to glass-ceramic than CSA, SMC, RXU2 and the control group. Analyzing failure types after spontaneous debonding and shear bond test at dentin, solely adhesive failures were found, while at glass-ceramic only cohesive failures occurred. CONCLUSION: Not all self-adhesive resin cements can be a valid alternative to conventional resin cements in order to bond silica-based glass-ceramics to human dentin. Abstract (250 words)Objectives: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the shear bond strengths of six self-adhesive resin cements to dentin and to glass-ceramic, 24hours and long-termaged, are similar to the one of a conventional resin cement. Methods:Human molars (N=168, n=12 per group) and silica-based glass-ceramic specimens (N=168, n=12 per group) were embedded in acrylic resin and randomly divided into 28 groups. The following resin cements were luted according to the manufacturers' instructions: ClearfilRelyX Unicem2(RXU2) and Panavia21(control group, PAN). Shear bond strength was measured initially (24h of water storage 37°C) and after aging (24,000 thermal cycles,5/55°C). The failure types (adhesive, cohesive) were evaluated after debonding.The shear bond strength values were analysed using three-way and one-way ANOVA, followed by a post hoc Scheffé and two-sample Student's t-tests. Results:RXU, RXU2and GCM showed similar after 24hours and aged shear bond strength to dentin as the control group. CSA, SMC and SPC exhibited significantly lower values. Before aging, none of the bond strength values to glass-ceramic differed significantly from the other.After thermocycling, GCM showed higher results to glass-ceramic than CSA, SMC, RXU2 and the control group. Analyzing failure types after spontaneous debonding and shear bond...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies do not use any device for stability, with constant support. Even though constant pressure during these periods was not employed by other authors [4][5][6]10,12,13,[22][23][24]29 , and it is not clinically appropriate, this parameter may have influenced the results, because any loss of stability may favour the formation of microvoids and consequently increase water sorption and solubility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of curing protocols on water sorption and solubility of a self-adhesive resin-cement

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the effect of different activation protocols on the polymerization of a self-adhesive dual cured resin-based cement. Methods: Thirty disc-shaped specimens were prepared with the resin cement RelyX U200 (3M ESPE) and divided according to three protocols: immediate light-activation for 40 s, delayed light-activation (10 min after manipulation, for 40 s) or self-curing without lightactivation. The specimens were desiccated, kept in water at 37 °C for 7 days and desiccated again to calculate water sorption, solubility and mass variation. Data were analyzed by Shapiro-Wilk Test and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05). Images after the specimens' final desiccation were also made. Results: The Wilcoxon test revealed a significant difference for sorption and mass variation (p<0.05) and the highest value was observed in self-curing or chemical activation group (CA), followed by delayed light-activation (DL) and immediate light-activation (IL). Besides the water sorption parameters, there were also microvoids on the discs from the delayed and no light-activation groups. Conclusions: The light-activation immediately after manipulation is recommended for the evaluated resin cement.

show abstract

“…More recently, new resin cement was introduced which does not require any pre-treatment of dentin surface. Their clinical success is based on their ability to adequately bond to different restorative substrates and on their reduced technique and operator sensitivity 24,25 . For resin cement that requires an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Er,Cr: YSGG laser on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

0.05) among the groups G1a (25.44 ± 2.35) and G1b (23.62 ± 3.48), G2a (11.77 ± 2.67) and G2b (9.93 ± 3.37). Fractures were observed at the interface between the dentin and the resin in all groups. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation did not influence on the bond strength of the resin cements and the etch-and-rinse resin cement had better results on bond strength than self-adhesive resin cement.]]>

show abstract

Early Hardness of Self‐Adhesive Resin Cements Cured under Indirect Resin Composite Restorations

Cited by 27 publications

References 31 publications

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

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

Influence of curing protocols on water sorption and solubility of a self-adhesive resin-cement

Influence of Er,Cr: YSGG laser on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About