• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.178-186
• /
• 2015

Dental polymer-based luting materials are classified into esthetic resin cement, adhesive resin cement and self-adhesive resin cement. Due to the different component of each type of resin cement, the preconditioning method of tooth surface and the steps are different from each type of resin cement. The pre-treatment of adherend (ceramic, resin and metal) surface also varies with the type of resin cement and the manufacturer. In this study, the characteristics of each type of resin cement, mechanical properties, indication and advantages were investigated. Through these, clinical tips on using resin cements were suggested.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.305-311
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. Over the past years, the adhesion of fiber posts luted with simplified adhesive systems has been a matter of great interest. The aim of this study was to assess the post retentive potential of a self-adhesive resin cement using different adhesive systems to compare the push-out bond strengths of fiber posts. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The post spaces of 56 mandibular premolar roots were prepared and divided into 4 experimental groups and further divided into 2 subgroups according to testing time (n=7). The fiber posts (Rely X Fiber Post) were luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem) and one of the following adhesive systems: no adhesive, a total-etch adhesive resin (Single Bond), a two-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil SE Bond) and a one-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil S3 Bond). Each root was cut horizontally, and 1.5 mm thick six root segments were prepared. Push-out tests were performed after one week or three months (0.5 mm/min). Statistical analysis were performed with three-way ANOVA (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. Cervical root segments showed higher bond strength values than middle segments. Adhesive application increased the bond strength. For one week group, the total-etch adhesive resin Single Bond showed higher bond strength than the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem applied without adhesive resin at middle region. For 3 months group, the two-step self-etch adhesive resin Clearfil SE Bond showed the highest bond strength for both regions. Regarding the time considered, Clearfil SE Bond 3 months group showed higher bond strength values than one week group. CONCLUSION. Using the adhesive resins in combination with the self-adhesive resin cement improves the bond strengths. The bond strength values of two-step self-etch adhesive resin Clearfil SE Bond improved as time passes.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.49 no.2
• /
• pp.18.1-18.13
• /
• 2024

Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of relined and non-relined fiberglass posts when cemented to root canal dentin using a conventional dual-cure resin cement or a self-adhesive resin cement. Materials and Methods: Two types of resin cements were utilized: conventional and self-adhesive. Additionally, 2 cementation protocols were employed, involving relined and non-relined fiberglass posts. In total, 72 bovine incisors were cemented and subjected to push-out bond strength testing (n = 10) followed by failure mode analysis. The cross-sectional microhardness (n = 5) was assessed along the root canal, and interface analyses (n = 3) were conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data from the push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness tests were analyzed via 3-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni post-hoc test (α= 0.05). Results: For non-relined fiberglass posts, conventional resin cement exhibited higher pushout bond strength than self-adhesive cement. Relined fiberglass posts yielded comparable results between the resin cements. Type II failure was the most common failure mode for both resin cements, regardless of cementation protocol. The use of relined fiberglass posts improved the cross-sectional microhardness values for both cements. SEM images revealed voids and bubbles in the incisors with non-relined fiberglass posts. Conclusions: Mechanical properties were impacted by the cementation protocol. Relined fiberglass posts presented the highest push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness values, regardless of the resin cement used (conventional dual-cure or self-adhesive). Conversely, for non-relined fiberglass posts, the conventional dual-cure resin cement yielded superior results to the self-adhesive resin cement.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.121-132
• /
• 1991

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the marginal sealing effect of composite resin inlays according to the luting techniques and compare them to the conventional direct resin filling technique. 90 cavities of class V were prepared on the buccal surface of 90 extracted molar teeth, which were divided into four groups. Cavities of control group were directly filled with Scotchbond 2 and P - 50, and those of composite resin inlay groups were luted with one of the followings: Adhesive bond followed by Adhesive cement, All bond followed by Adhesive cement, Fuji - ionomer type L All the specimens were immersed in India ink dye solution for 7 days at $37^{\circ}C$ incubator after thermocycling between $5^{\circ}C$ and $60^{\circ}C$ and longitudinally sectioned with diamond disk inot two parts All the specimens were observed at the occlusal and gingival margins and statistical analysis was performed. The results were as follows: 1. Groups filled with composite resin inlay showed less marginal leakage than the group directly filled(p<0.01). 2. There was no significant difference in marginal leakage between composite resin inlay groups luted with Adhesive bond followed by Adhesive cement and the group luted with All bond followed by Adhesive cement(p>0.05). 3. At occlusal margins, Composite resin inlay group luted with Adhesive bond followed by Adhesive cement showed less marginal leakage than the group luted with Fuii ionomer type I(p<0.01). At gingival margins, composite resin inlay group luted with All bond followed by Adhesive cement showed less marignal leakage than the group luted with Fuji ionomer type I(P<0.01).

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.20 no.3 s.32
• /
• pp.583-591
• /
• 1990

If the bond strength is sufficient to resist orthodontic force, orthodontic brackets can be bonded to restorations. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations with no-mix adhesive or glass ionomer cement. The shear bond strength of adhesives bonded to restorations was studied in vitro. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to 10 extracted natural teeth, 40 composite resin restorations and 40 glass ionomer restorations. The surfaces of composite resin restorations were roughened or applied with bonding agent (Scothbond) after surface roughening. The surfaces of glass ionomer cement restorations were conditioned with acid etching or applied with Scotchbond to etched surface. The adhesive was no-mix resin or glass ionomer cement. The shear bond strength was measured. The results were as follows: 1. Orthodontic brackets could be bonded to composite resin restorations effectively as they could be bonded to acid etched enamel with no-mix adhesive. The shear bond strength was sufficient to resist orthodontic force and was not affected by bonding agent greatly. 2. The shear bond strength of no-mix adhesive bonded to acid etched glass ionomer cement restorations was sufficient to resist orthodontic force. However. the fracture risk of glass ionomer cement restorations was increased during debonding. The bonding agent couldn't increase the shear bond strength greatly. 3. The shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement bonded to glass ionomer cement restorations was lower than that of no-mix adhesive. The shear bond strength was sufficient to resist orthodontic force and was greatly decreased by bonding agent. 4. The shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement bonded to composite resin restorations was too low to resist orthodontic force.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.12-16
• /
• 2014

Objectives: Extensively destroyed teeth are commonly restored with composite resin before cavity preparation for indirect restorations. The longevity of the restoration can be related to the proper bonding of the resin cement to the composite. This study aimed to evaluate the microshear bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements to composite resin. Material and Methods: Composite discs were subject to one of six different surface pretreatments: none (control), 35% phosphoric acid etching for 30 seconds (PA), application of silane (silane), PA + silane, PA + adhesive, or PA + silane + adhesive (n = 6). A silicone mold containing a cylindrical orifice ($1mm^2$ diameter) was placed over the composite resin. RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) or BisCem (Bisco Inc.) self-adhesive resin cement was inserted into the orifices and light-cured. Self-adhesive cement cylinders were submitted to shear loading. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Results: Independent of the cement used, the PA + Silane + Adhesive group showed higher microshear bond strength than those of the PA and PA + Silane groups. There was no difference among the other treatments. Unicem presented higher bond strength than BisCem for all experimental conditions. Conclusions: Pretreatments of the composite resin surface might have an effect on the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to this substrate.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.535-543
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the bonding characteristics of a new self-adhesive resin cement to dentin, which does not require bonding and conditioning procedure of the tooth surface, and conventional resin cement. The effect of phosphoric acid etching prior to application of self-adhesive resin cement on the shear bond strength was also evaluated. Material and methods: Fortyfive non-carious human adult molars extracted within 6 months were embedded in chemically cured acrylic resin. The teeth were ground with a series of SiC-papers ending with 800 grit until the flat dentin surfaces of the teeth were exposed. The teeth were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups. In group 1, self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) was bonded without any conditioning of teeth. In group 2, RelyX Unicem was bonded to teeth after phosphoric acid etching. For group 3, Syntac Primer (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was applied to the teeth before Syntac adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Helibond (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) followed by conventional resin cement, Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). To make a shear bond strength test model, a plastic tuble (3 mm diameter, 3 mm height) was applied to the dentin surfaces at a right angle and filled it with respective resin cement, and light-polymerized for 40 seconds. All the specimens were stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours before test. Universal Testing Machine (Z020, Zwick, Ulm, Germany) at a cross head speed of 1 mm/min was used to evaluate the shear bond strength. The failure sites were inspected under a magnifier and Scanning Electron Microscope. The data was analyzed with One way ANOVA and Scheffe test at ${\alpha}$= 0.05. Results: (1) The shear bond strengths to dentin of RelyX Unicem was not significantly different from those of Variolink II/Syntac. (2) Phosphoric acid etching lowered the shear bond strength of RelyX Unicem significantly. (3) Most of RelyX Unicem and Variolink II showed mixed fractures, while all the specimens of RelyX Unicem with phosphoric acid etching demonstrated adhesive failure between dentin and resin cement. Conclusion: Shear bond strength to dentin of self-adhesive resin cement is not significantly different from conventional resin cement, and phosphoric acid etching decrease the shear bond strength to dentin of self-adhesive resin cement.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.226-233
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study evaluated the adhesion of 10-MDP containing self-etch and self-adhesive resin cements to dentin with and without the use of etch-and-rinse technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Human third molars (N=180) were randomly divided into 6 groups (n=30 per group). Conventional (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray-PAN) and self-adhesive resin cements (Clearfil SA, Kuraray-CSA) were bonded to dentin surfaces either after application of 3-step etch-and-rinse (35% $H_3PO_4$ + ED Primer) or two-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil SE Bond). Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test using the universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). The failure types were analyzed using a stereomicroscope and quality of hybrid layer was observed under a scanning electron microscope. The data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. Overall, PAN adhesive cement showed significantly higher mean bond strength ($12.5{\pm}2.3-14.1{\pm}2.4$ MPa) than CSA cement ($9.3{\pm}1.4-13.9{\pm}1.9$ MPa) (P<.001). Adhesive failures were more frequent in CSA cement groups when used in conjunction with two-step self-adhesive (68%) or no adhesive at all (66%). Hybrid layer quality was inferior in CSA compared to PAN cement in all conditions. CONCLUSION. In clinical situations where bonding to dentin substrate is crucial, both conventional and self-adhesive resin cements based on 10-MDP can benefit from etch-and-rinse technique to achieve better quality of adhesion in the early clinical period.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.88-95
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if pre-treatment with desensitizers have a negative effect on microtensile bond strength before cementing a restoration using recently introduced self-adhesive resin cement to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty-five human molars' occlusal surfaces were ground to expose dentin; and were randomly grouped as (n=5); 1) Gluma-(Glutaraldehyde/HEMA) 2) Aqua-Prep F-(Fluoride), 3) Bisblock-(Oxalate), 4) Cervitec Plus-(Clorhexidine), 5) Smart protect-(Triclosan), 6) Nd:YAG laser, 7) No treatment (control). After applying the selected agent, RelyX U200 self-adhesive resin cement was used to bond composite resin blocks to dentin. All groups were subjected to thermocycling for 1000 cycles between $5-55^{\circ}C$. Each bonded specimen was sectioned to microbars ($6mm{\times}1mm{\times}1mm$) (n=20). Specimens were submitted to microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Levene's test, Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance, and Conover's nonparametric statistical analysis were used (P<.05). RESULTS. Gluma, Smart Protect and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed comparable microtensile bond strengths compared with the control group (P>.05). The microtensile bond strengths of Aqua-Prep F, and Cervitec Plus were similar to each other but significantly lower than the control group (P<.05). Bisblock showed the lowest microtensile bond strength among all groups (P<.001). Most groups showed adhesive failure. CONCLUSION. Within the limitation of this study, it is not recommended to use Aqua-prep F, Cervitec Plus and Bisblock on dentin when used with a self-adhesive resin cement due to the decrease they cause in bond strength. Beside, pre-treatment of dentin with Gluma, Smart protect, and Nd:YAG laser do not have a negative effect.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.184-191
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the physical properties of different self-adhesive resin cements and their shear bond strength on dentin and lithium disilicate ceramic and compare these result with that of conventional resin cement. For this study, four self-adhesive resin cements (Rely-X Unicem, Embrace Wetbond, Mexcem, BisCem), one conventional resin cement (Rely-X ARC) and one restorative resin composite (Z-350) were used. In order to evaluate the physical properties, compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and flexural strength were measured. To evaluate the shear bond strength on dentin, each cement was adhered to buccal dentinal surface of extracted human lower molars. Dentin bonding agent was applied after acid etching for groups of Rely-X ARC and Z-350. In order to evaluate the shear bond strength on ceramic, lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS Empress 2) disks were prepared. Only Rely-X ARC and Z-350 groups were pretreated with hydrofluoric acid and silane. And then each resin cement was adhered to ceramic surface in 2 mm diameter. Physical properties and shear bond strengths were measured using a universal testing machine. Results were as follows 1. BisCem showed the lowest compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and flexural strength. (P<0.05) 2. Self-adhesive resin cements showed significantly lower shear bond strength on the dentin and lithium disilicate ceramic than Rely-X ARC and Z-350 (P<0.05) In conclusion, self-adhesive resin cements represent the lower physical properties and shear bond strength than a conventional resin cement.