Effect of temporary cement removal methods from human dentin on zirconia-dentin adhesion

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of temporary cement residue removal methods from human coronary dentin on the bond strength of adhesively-luted zirconia on dentin. Forty non-carious human molars were embedded in acrylic resin and the dentin surfaces were exposed. Temporary acrylic crowns were provisionally cemented with zinc oxide cement without eugenol and stored in distilled water (37°C /15 days). After crown removal, the excess temporary cement was removed from dentin according to one of the following cleaning methods: (n = 8 per group): (a) air-water rinse (AW), (b) pumice paste (PP), (c) air-abrasion with aluminum oxide particles (Al2O3) (AA), (d) sodium bicarbonate spray (SB) or (e) glycine powder (CP). Forty zirconia cylinders were made and each cylinder was adhesively luted onto each tooth after adhesive resin (Scotch Bond Universal, 3 M ESPE-SBU) application using resin cement (RelyX Ultimate, 3 M ESPE) and photo-polymerized from each surface for 20 s. The bonded specimens were stored in distilled water (37°C) for 90 days. The bonded interface was loaded under shear (1 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (= 0.05). Mean bond strength was significantly affected by the cleaning method (p = 0.0289). Cleaning with AA method resulted in significantly higher bond strength than with SB (p < 0.05) but similar to CP, PP and AW (p > 0.05). All cleaning methods were effective in removing temporary resin cement from dentin surfaces. Air-abrasion with aluminum oxide particles was more effective than with sodium bicarbonate spray promoting adhesion between zirconia and dentin.

The effect of mechanical and chemo-mechanical temporary cement cleaning methods on shear bond strength with self-adhesive resin cement (an in-vitro study)

“…In subgroups where resin-based temporary cement (Provytemp) was applied, the results of shear bond strength were statistically significantly higher than other subgroups where Non-Eugenol temporary cement (NETC) was applied (P-value = 0.048); these results are coincident with other studies that attributed this to the ease of removal of this type of temporary cement without leaving remnants [9,34,35]. The results of our study were confirmed by SEM photomicrographs of the dentin surface before the application of any cleaning method; the remnants of temporary cement were markedly seen adherent to the dentin surface.…”

Status of decontamination methods after using dentin adhesion inhibitors on indirect restorations: An integrative review of 19 publications

“…A total of 52 papers were identified (from 1990 to 2020), 39 of which were excluded after a review (about adhesives, not using resin cement: 20 papers; not including bond strength test: 4 papers; review without any data: 3 papers; no examination of decontamination or simple explanation of the contamination effects of decreased bond strength: 10 papers; and using glass ionomer cement: 2 papers). We also included six papers found in a manual search, resulting in a total of 19 articles for inclusion in this review [ [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] ] ( Fig. 2 ).…”

“…Nonetheless, they speculated that the bond strength was increased as a result of using low-pressure and small particle abrasion-treated dentin as a mechanical cleansing protocol before definitive cementation. Januário et al [ 12 ] (T#2) evaluated the effects of a removal method for temporary cement residue using pumice paste, air abrasion with alumina, sodium bicarbonate spray, and glycine powder, and declared that only alumina abrasion (particle size: 50 μm) had a higher range of dentin bond strength.…”

Effect of different surface treatments and multimode adhesive application on the Weibull characteristics, wettability, surface topography and adhesion to CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic

“…Twelve 10-μL drops of distilled water (n=12) were deposited on the ceramic surface (six measurements for each ceramic block) using a dropper adapted to a goniometer. After 5s, 21 images were taken with a camera (Canon T3i, Canon Lens, Macro 100, Canon, São Paulo, Brazil) coupled at a fixed distance of 30 cm. The mean of contact angle was estimated using a software (Surftens V4.5, OEG, Wildbahn 8i, Frankfurt, Germany).…”