On the understanding of zinc-oxide eugenol cement use prior to etch-rinse bonding strategies

Context: Zinc-oxide eugenol (ZOE) is frequently used due to its satisfactory biological response, sedative effect on the pulp, and easy removal. However, literature is very controversial about the influence of the temporary cement-containing eugenol on the bond strength properties. Aims: This study aims to clarify the literature controversy by evaluating the bond strength of ZOE or ZOE-free applied before bonding procedures and the 7-day resting period after the first session. Settings and Designs: Twelve recently extracted third molars were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1: Control (without treatment), Group 2: Temp-Bond NE; Group 3: Temp-Bond. Subjects and Methods: After temporary restorations, the teeth were immersed in distilled water and stored for 7 days at 37°C. The temporary cement was mechanically removed, and prophylaxis was performed. The adhesive procedures were performed, and a 6-mm-high composite resin block was built. The teeth were immediately stored at 100% relative humidity at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens with 0.7 (±0.2) mm2 of cross-sectional area were obtained and subjected to a microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test at 1 mm/min until failure. Statistical Analysis Used: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test were used for statistical analysis. Results: ZOE or ZOE-free cement did not interfere in the μTBS between resin composite and dentine when used with a two-step-etch-rinse adhesive material, considering 7 days of resting period after the first session, by the ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The authors recommend the removal of the temporary cementation at least seven days after the first session and suggest that the clinicians follow-up further studies to use the cement in case its removal is recommended within a longer period.

Influencia del silano y adhesivos universales en la adhesión durante la reparación de un cerómero / Influence of silane and universal adhesives on adhesion during the repair of a ceromer

RESUMEN Introducción: No existe un protocolo definitivo para la reparación de cerómeros. Los adhesivos universales debido a su composición e indicaciones pueden ser una alternativa dentro de la reparación de restauraciones poliméricas, pero la asociación de los silanos con los adhesivos universales requiere más investigación. Objetivo: Evaluar y comparar la resistencia de unión de dos adhesivos universales en la interfase cerómero-resina, asociado o no a un agente silano. Material y métodos: Se realizaron seis bloques de cerómero y se trataron según las siguientes variables: (A) sin tratamiento, (B) agente silano, (C) adhesivo universal 1 + silano, (D) adhesivo universal 1, (E) adhesivo universal 2 + silano, (F) adhesivo universal 2 (n = 10). Se unió resina compuesta a dichas superficies y se realizó prueba de microtensión. El tipo de falla se evaluó con estereomicroscopio. Resultados: Los valores de resistencia de unión de los grupos fueron estadísticamente diferentes (p < 0.05), excepto entre ambos adhesivos universales evaluados. El grupo B presentó los valores más altos de resistencia adhesiva. Los grupos C y E obtuvieron valores de resistencia adhesiva menores en comparación con los grupos D y F. El tipo de falla predominante fue el adhesivo. Conclusión: El uso asociado de un silano funcional con los adhesivos universales no mejora los valores de resistencia adhesiva, por lo que debería evitarse. Como primera elección se recomienda el silano funcional, y en segundo grado, sólo usar adhesivos universales, pero no asociar los dos materiales en un mismo proceso adhesivo.

ABSTRACT Introduction: There is no definitive protocol for ceromer repairs. Universal adhesives due to their composition and indications may be an alternative for polymeric restorations repair. But the association of silanes with universal adhesives requires more research. Objective: To evaluate and compare the bond strength of two universal adhesives in ceromer - resin interface, associated or not with a silane agent. Material and methods: Six ceromer blocks were made and treated according to the following variables: (A) No treatment, (B) Silane agent, (C) Universal Adhesive 1 + Silane, (D) Universal Adhesive 1, (E) Adhesive Universal 2 + Silane, (F) Universal Adhesive 2 (n = 10). Composite resin was attached to these surfaces and a microtension test was performed. The type of failure was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Results: The bond strength values of the groups were statistically different (p <0.05), except between both universal adhesives were evaluated. Group (B) presented the highest values of adhesive resistance. Groups (C and E) had lower adhesive strength values compared to groups (D and F). The most prevalent type of failure was the adhesive. Conclusion: The associated use of functional silane to universal adhesives does not improve adhesive strength values, so it should be avoided. As a first choice, functionalsilane is recommended, and in the second degree, only use universal adhesives, but do not associate the two materials in the same adhesive process.

Resistência de união entre cimentos resinosos autoadesivos e cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina / Bond strengthof self-adhesive resin cements to polycrystalline zirconia ceramics

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a resistência de união a microtração de cimentos resinosos autoadesivos a cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina. Dezoito blocos cerâmicos de zircônia 3Y-TZP (9 LAVA™ e 9 LAVA™ Plus) foram jateados com partículas de 50 µm de Al2O3por 20 s com pressão de 28 psi a uma distância de 10 mm. Os blocos cerâmicos foram duplicados em resina composta (Point 4, Kerr) por moldagem com silicone. Os blocos de resina composta foram cimentados à superfície jateada da zircônia usando três diferentes cimentos resinosos autoadesivos: (1) RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE); (2) SmartCem 2 (Dentsply); (3) Speedcem (Ivoclar Vivadent). Após 24 h imersos em água destilada a 37oC, os blocos cimentados foram cortados em palitos para testes de microtração,com área da interface adesiva de 1 mm2 ± 0,2 mm, e tensionados até a fratura. Os resultados foram analisados pelo teste de análise de variância de dois fatores e pelo teste de comparações múltiplas LSD (α=0.05). As amostras fraturadas foram analisadas com microscopia eletrônica de varredura (MEV) e o modo de falha foi registrado. A topografia das superfícies cerâmicas antes e após o jateamento foi comparada por microscopia de força atômica (AFM). A resistência de união do cimento Speedcem à zircônia foi estatisticamente superior àquela reportada pelos cimentos RelyX Unicem 2 e SmartCem 2, independentemente da cerâmica usada (p<0,05). O fator cerâmica não teve influência estatística na resistência de união. A interação entre os dois fatores se mostrou significativa (p<0,05). O modo de fratura associado ao SmartCem 2 foi quase exclusivamente adesiva, enquanto oRelyX Unicem 2e o Speedcem exibiram um maior percentual de falhas mistas. Não foram observadas falhas coesivas. O AFM não revelou diferença no padrão de topografia de superfície entre as duas cerâmicas antes ou após o jateamento. Concluiu-se que o cimento Speedcem foi superior na adesão a cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina...

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polycrystalline zirconia. Eighteen 3Y-TZP ceramic blocks (9 LAVA™ and 9 LAVA™ Plus) were sandblasted with 50 µm Al2O3 powder for 20 s with a pressure of 28 psi at a working distance of 10 mm. The ceramic blocks were duplicated in composite resin (Point 4, Kerr) using a silicon mold. Composite blocks were bonded to sandblasted zirconia using different self-adhesive resin cements: (1) RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE); (2) SmartCem 2 (Dentsply); (3) Speedcem (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 24 h immersed in distilled water at 37oC the bonded specimens were cut into microtensile bond sticks of 1 mm2 ± 0,2 mminterface areaand loaded in tension until failure. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and LSDtest for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). The fractured surfaces were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the failure mode was recorded. Surface topography of the sandblasted and the as sintered zirconia materials were analyzed under an atomic force microscope (AFM).Bond strength of Speedcem cement to zirconia was significantly higher than that of RelyX Unicem 2 and SmartCem 2, irrespective of the ceramic used (p<0,05). Bond strength was not significantly influenced by the ceramic factor. Interactions were significant (p<0,05). The mode of failure of SmartCem 2 was almost exclusively adhesive, while RelyX Unicem 2 and Speedcem exhibited a good percentage of mixed fractures. No cohesive fractures were observed. AFM did not reveal differences in the topography pattern of the two ceramics before or after sandblasting. It was concluded that Speedcem presented superior adhesion to polycrystalline zirconia ceramics...

Resistência de união entre cimentos resinosos autoadesivos e cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina / Bond strengthof self-adhesive resin cements to polycrystalline zirconia ceramics

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a resistência de união a microtração de cimentos resinosos autoadesivos a cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina. Dezoito blocos cerâmicos de zircônia 3Y-TZP (9 LAVA™ e 9 LAVA™ Plus) foram jateados com partículas de 50 µm de Al2O3por 20 s com pressão de 28 psi a uma distância de 10 mm. Os blocos cerâmicos foram duplicados em resina composta (Point 4, Kerr) por moldagem com silicone. Os blocos de resina composta foram cimentados à superfície jateada da zircônia usando três diferentes cimentos resinosos autoadesivos: (1) RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE); (2) SmartCem 2 (Dentsply); (3) Speedcem (Ivoclar Vivadent). Após 24 h imersos em água destilada a 37oC, os blocos cimentados foram cortados em palitos para testes de microtração,com área da interface adesiva de 1 mm2 ± 0,2 mm, e tensionados até a fratura. Os resultados foram analisados pelo teste de análise de variância de dois fatores e pelo teste de comparações múltiplas LSD (α=0.05). As amostras fraturadas foram analisadas com microscopia eletrônica de varredura (MEV) e o modo de falha foi registrado. A topografia das superfícies cerâmicas antes e após o jateamento foi comparada por microscopia de força atômica (AFM). A resistência de união do cimento Speedcem à zircônia foi estatisticamente superior àquela reportada pelos cimentos RelyX Unicem 2 e SmartCem 2, independentemente da cerâmica usada (p<0,05). O fator cerâmica não teve influência estatística na resistência de união. A interação entre os dois fatores se mostrou significativa (p<0,05). O modo de fratura associado ao SmartCem 2 foi quase exclusivamente adesiva, enquanto oRelyX Unicem 2e o Speedcem exibiram um maior percentual de falhas mistas. Não foram observadas falhas coesivas. O AFM não revelou diferença no padrão de topografia de superfície entre as duas cerâmicas antes ou após o jateamento. Concluiu-se que o cimento Speedcem foi superior na adesão a cerâmicas de zircônia policristalina.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polycrystalline zirconia. Eighteen 3Y-TZP ceramic blocks (9 LAVA™ and 9 LAVA™ Plus) were sandblasted with 50 µm Al2O3 powder for 20 s with a pressure of 28 psi at a working distance of 10 mm. The ceramic blocks were duplicated in composite resin (Point 4, Kerr) using a silicon mold. Composite blocks were bonded to sandblasted zirconia using different self-adhesive resin cements: (1) RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE); (2) SmartCem 2 (Dentsply); (3) Speedcem (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 24 h immersed in distilled water at 37oC the bonded specimens were cut into microtensile bond sticks of 1 mm2 ± 0,2 mminterface areaand loaded in tension until failure. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and LSDtest for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). The fractured surfaces were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the failure mode was recorded. Surface topography of the sandblasted and the as sintered zirconia materials were analyzed under an atomic force microscope (AFM).Bond strength of Speedcem cement to zirconia was significantly higher than that of RelyX Unicem 2 and SmartCem 2, irrespective of the ceramic used (p<0,05). Bond strength was not significantly influenced by the ceramic factor. Interactions were significant (p<0,05). The mode of failure of SmartCem 2 was almost exclusively adhesive, while RelyX Unicem 2 and Speedcem exhibited a good percentage of mixed fractures. No cohesive fractures were observed. AFM did not reveal differences in the topography pattern of the two ceramics before or after sandblasting. It was concluded that Speedcem presented superior adhesion to polycrystalline zirconia ceramics.

Difference in bond strength according to filling techniques and cavity walls in box-type occlusal composite resin restoration / 대한치과보존학회지

Bond strength depends on characteristics of bonding surface and restorative technique. The majority of studies dealing with dentin bond strength were carried out on flat bonding surface, therefore, difference of bond strength between axial wall and pulpal wall is not clear yet. This study evaluated bonding difference between cavity walls in class I composite resin restoration with different filling techniques. Twenty extracted caries-free human third molars were used. Cavities were prepared in 6 x 4 x 3 mm box-type and divided into four groups according to filling technique and bonding surface: Group I; bulk filling - pulpal wall, Group II; bulk filling - axial wall, Group III; incremental filling - pulpal wall, Group IV; incremental filling - axial wall. Cavities were filled with Filtek Z250(R)(3M/ESPE., USA) and Clearfill SE bond(R)(Kuraray, Japan). After 24 hour-storage in 37degrees C water, the resin bonded teeth were sectioned bucco-lingualy at the center of cavity. Specimens were vertically sectioned into 1.0 x 1.0 mm thick serial sticks perpendicular to the bond surface using a low-speed diamond saw (Accutom 50, Struers, Copenhagen, Denmark) under water cooling. The trimmed specimens were then attached to the testing device and in turn, was placed in a universal testing machine (EZ test, Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan) for micro-tensile testing at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and t-test at a significance level of 95%. The results were as follows: 1. There was no significant difference between bulk filling and incremental filling. 2. There was no significant difference between pulpal wall and axial wall, either. Within the limit of this study, it was concluded that microtensile bond strength was not affected by the filling technique and the site of cavity walls.