The Effect of Time between Handling and Photoactivation on Self‐Adhesive Resin Cement Properties

Fonseca, Andrea Soares Quirino da Silva; Mizrahi, Jamil; Menezes, Lívia Rodrigues de; Valente, Lisia Lorea; Moraes, Rafael R.; Schneider, Luís Felipe Jochims

doi:10.1111/jopr.12108

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference in the behavior of conventional cements could be related to the formulation and their viscosity. The difference in composition is inherent to the materials and could not be compensated by the polymerization, although an increased viscosity of the material could restrict the photoactivation process 14 . The conventional cements contain in their basic composition, resin monomers as BIS-GMA (bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate) or UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microshear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to feldsphatic ceramic

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study was to verify the microshear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to feldsphatic ceramic. Methods: Twenty discs of Starlight ceramic (Degudent) were made (15mm x 2mm). The bonding procedure was accomplished by insertion of resin cements into tubes of 0.7mm internal diameter in contact with the ceramic. The resin cements used were: RelyX ARC (3M Espe), Panavia F (Kuraray), RelyX Unicem (3M Espe) and seT (SDI). Total of six tubes of each material on each ceramic disc. The specimens were tested for microshear in a universal testing machine, 24hours and 6months after bonding procedure. Values of microshear bonding strength (MPa) were subjected to ANOVA and Fisher PLSD test (p<0.05). Results: For 24hours analysis, RelyX ARC showed the highest microshear bonding strength without statistical difference to RelyX Unicem and seT. Panavia F showed the lowest values of microshear bonding strength in both periods. In the analysis after 6months there was a significant increase in the microshear bonding strength values for all cements compared to 24hours. Only for RelyX ARC, the increase was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In conclusion, the bond strength depends mainly on the type of resin cement used, and the self-adhesive cements behave similarly to conventional resin cement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microshear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to feldsphatic ceramic

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have shown that some resin cements are more prone to water sorption and subsequent degradation than others. 16,[27][28][29][30][31] Zorzin and others 16 have related that resin cement specimens that are desiccated during the acid-base reaction phase could result in extraction of water produced during the setting reaction and that this could interfere with setting and pH neutralization kinetics. In the present laboratory study, all the specimens were fabricated on the bench and stored at room temperature for 24 hours before polishing and testing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulated Wear of Self-Adhesive Resin Cements

Takamizawa

Latta

et al. 2016

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the primary areas of concern with luting agents is marginal gap erosion and attrition. The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate bulk and marginal slit (gap) generalized wear of self-adhesive resin cements. Three self-adhesive resin cements were used in this study: G-CEM LinkAce (LA), Maxcem Elite (ME), and RelyX Unicem2 Automix (RU). A custom stainless-steel fixture with a cavity 4.5 mm in diameter and 4 mm deep was used for simulated generalized (bulk) wear. For simulated marginal gap wear, a two-piece stainless-steel custom fixture was designed with a slit (gap) 300 μm wide and 3 mm in length. For both wear models, 20 specimens each for each of the three adhesive cements were made for both light-cure and chemical-cure techniques. The cured cements were polished with a series of carbide papers to a 4000-grit surface and subjected to 100,000 cycles using the slit (gap) wear model and 400,000 cycles for generalized (bulk) wear in a Leinfelder-Suzuki (Alabama machine) wear simulator (maximum load of 78.5 N). Flat-ended stainless-steel antagonists were used in a water slurry of poly(methylmethacrylate) beads for simulation of generalized contact-free area wear with both wear models. Before and after the wear challenges, the specimens were profiled with a Proscan 2100 noncontact profilometer, and wear (volume loss [VL] and mean facet depth [FD]) was determined using AnSur 3D software. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests were used for data analysis for the two wear models. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to examine polished surfaces of the resin cements and the worn surfaces after the wear challenges. The two-way ANOVA of VL using the generalized (bulk) wear model showed a significant effect among the three resin cement materials for the factor of resin cement (p<0.001) and the interaction of the cement and cure method (p<0.001), but not for the cure method (p=0.465). The two-way ANOVA for FD also found a significant difference for the factor of resin cement (p<0.001) and the interaction of the resin cement and cure method (p<0.001), but not for the cure method (p=0.277). The simulated generalized (bulk) wear for the light-cure groups was as follows: VL (mm(3)): RU 0.631 (0.094), LA 0.692 (0.112), and ME 1.046 (0.141) and FD (μm): RU 43.6 (6.5), LA 47.0 (7.7), and ME 72.5 (9.9). The simulated generalized (bulk) wear for the chemical-cure groups was as follows: VL (mm(3)): LA 0.741 (0.105), RU 1.231 (0.234), and ME 1.305 (0.143) and FD (μm): LA 50.7 (7.2), RU 84.5 (16.1), and ME 91.7 (10.2). Simulated wear using the slit (gap) model for the light-cure groups was as follows: VL (mm(3)): RU 0.030 (0.006), LA 0.031 (0.006), and ME 0.041 (0.009) and FD (μm): RU 49.6 (5.7), LA 57.2 (8.4), and ME 70.9 (10.7). The wear values for the chemical-cure slit (gap) groups were as follows: VL (mm(3)): LA 0.031 (0.004), ME 0.038 (0.007), and RU 0.045 (0.009) and FD (μm): LA 53.9 (6.7), ME 63.5 (9.1), and RU 74.2 (12.9). Pearson correlation tests revealed a strong relationship be...

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%

“…Thus, different light-activation protocols should be investigated, as the most significant effects on the properties of resin cements are related to the type of cement, exposure time, followed by translucency, ceramic type and thickness of the ceramic restoration [1][2][3] . The effect of light activation on dual-cured resin cements should not be neglected for some cements [4][5][6][7] . However, the immediate light-activation of a dual-cured resin-cement, as recommended by the manufacturer, may have a deleterious effect on polymerization if it stiffens the polymer, limiting the process of chemical activation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

The Effect of Time between Handling and Photoactivation on Self‐Adhesive Resin Cement Properties

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

Microshear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to feldsphatic ceramic

Microshear bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements to feldsphatic ceramic

Simulated Wear of Self-Adhesive Resin Cements

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About