Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: A 2-year in vivo study

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 535-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Taschner ◽  
Norbert Krämer ◽  
Ulrich Lohbauer ◽  
Matthias Pelka ◽  
Lorenzo Breschi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
In Vivo Study ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Ceramic Inlays ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement

scholarly journals Luting glass ceramic restorations using a self-adhesive resin cement under different dentin conditions

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme B Guarda ◽  
Luciano S Gonçalves ◽  
Américo B Correr ◽  
Rafael R Moraes ◽  
Mário A.C Sinhoreti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Ceramic Restorations

Effect of Silanization on Microtensile Bond Strength of Different Resin Cements to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Parise Gré ◽  
Renan C de Ré Silveira ◽  
Shizuma Shibata ◽  
Carlo TR Lago ◽  
Luiz CC Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Silane Coupling ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement

ABSTRACT Aim This study evaluated the influence of a silane-coupling agent on the bond strength of a self-adhesive cement and a conventional resin cement to a lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Materials and methods A total of eight ceramic blocks were fabricated and divided into four groups (n = 2). In groups 1 and 3, ceramic surfaces were etched with hydrofluoric acid 10% for 20 seconds, rinsed for 30 seconds, and air-dried. One layer of a silane agent was applied onto all ceramic specimens and air-dried for 30 seconds. In groups 2 and 4, ceramic surfaces were etched with hydrofluoric acid, rinsed, and air-dried without application of the silane-coupling agent. The ceramic blocks were bonded to a block of composite with a self-adhesive resin cement or with a conventional resin cement, according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C, the specimens were sectioned perpendicular to the bonding interface area to obtain beams with a bonding area of 0.8 mm2 and submitted to a microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were statistically analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and the Games–Howell post hoc test (p = 0.05). Fractured specimens were examined under optical microscopy at 40× magnification. Results Silanization resulted in higher microtensile bond strength compared to groups without silane. No significant differences were found between the conventional resin cement and the self-adhesive resin cement with silane agent (p = 0.983), and without silane agent (p = 0.877). Conclusion Silanization appears to be crucial for resin bonding to a lithium disilicate-based ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used. The self-adhesive resin cement performed as well as the conventional resin cement. Clinical significance Applying one layer of a silane-coupling agent after etching the ceramic surface with hydrofluoric acid 10% enhanced the bond strength between resin cements and a glass ceramic. How to cite this article Gré CP, de Ré Silveira RC, Shibata S, Lago CTR, Vieira LCC. Effect of Silanization on Microtensile Bond Strength of Different Resin Cements to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(2):149-153.

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of Postcementation Hypersensitivity with Glass Ionomer Cement and a Resin Cement: An in vivo Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepak Mehta ◽  
Rohit M Shetty ◽  
Sonia Bhat ◽  
G Srivatsa ◽  
Y Bharath Shetty
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Abutment Teeth ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Ionomer Cement

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this clinical study was to compare the postoperative sensitivity of abutment teeth restored with full coverage restorations retained with either conventional glassionomer cement (GIC) or resin cement. Materials and methods Fifty patients received full-coverage restorations on vital abutment teeth. Of these, 25 were cemented with GIC (GC Luting and Lining cement) and the other 25 using an adhesive resin cement (Smartcem 2). A randomized single blind study was undertaken for acquiring and evaluating the data. The teeth were examined before cementation, after cementation, 24 hours postcementation and 7 days postcementation. A visual analog scale was used to help the patient rate hypersensitivity. Results The statistical analysis of the result was done using students paired t-test. No statistically significant difference between Smartcem 2 and GIC was observed, when tested immediately and 24 hours after cementation. Statistically significant difference was seen between Smartcem 2 and GIC when tested 7 days postcementation with a significance level of 0.05. Higher postoperative sensitivity was seen with GIC when compared to resin cement. Conclusion In this study, the incidence of postoperative hypersensitivity after cementation of full-crown restorations with GIC and resin cement was similar when tested immediately. However, 7 days postcementation, abutments with GIC showed higher response compared to resin cement. Clinical significance A self-adhesive resin cement can be the material of choice for luting if presence of postoperative sensitivity is of prime consideration. In case GIC is being used, patient should be informed about the presence of sensitivity for a more prolonged period than with resin cement. How to cite this article Shetty RM, Bhat S, Mehta D, Srivatsa G, Shetty YB. Comparative Analysis of Postcementation Hypersensitivity with Glass Ionomer Cement and a Resin Cement: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3): 327-331.

scholarly journals Does Acid Etching Morphologically and Chemically Affect Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Surfaces?

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukinori Maruo ◽  
Goro Nishigawa ◽  
Masao Irie ◽  
Kumiko Yoshihara ◽  
Takuya Matsumoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Ceramic Surfaces ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement

Background This study evaluated the surface morphology, chemical composition and adhesiveness of lithium disilicate glass ceramic after acid etching with hydrofluoric acid or phosphoric acid. Methods Lithium disilicate glass ceramic specimens polished by 600-grit silicon carbide paper were subjected to one or a combination of these surface treatments: airborne particle abrasion with 50-μm alumina (AA), etching with 5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) or 36% phosphoric acid (Phos), and application of silane coupling agent (Si). Stainless steel rods of 3.6-mm diameter and 2.0-mm height were cemented onto treated ceramic surfaces with a self-adhesive resin cement (Clearfil SA Cement). Shear bond strengths between ceramic and cement were measured after 24-hour storage in 37°C distilled water. Results SEM images of AA revealed the formation of conventional microretentive grooves, but acid etching with HF or Phos produced a porous surface. Bond strengths of AA+HF+Si (28.1 ± 6.0 MPa), AA+Phos+Si (17.5 ± 4.1 MPa) and HF+Si (21.0 ± 3.0 MPa) were significantly greater than those of non-pretreated controls with Si (9.7 ± 3.7 MPa) and without Si (4.1 ± 2.4 MPa) (p<0.05). In addition, HF etching alone (26.2 ± 7.5 MPa) had significantly higher bond strength than AA alone (11.5 ± 4.0 MPa) (p<0.05). AA+HF, AA+Phos and HF showed cohesive failures. Conclusions Etching with HF or Phos yielded higher bond strength between lithium disilicate glass ceramic and self-adhesive resin cement without microcrack formation.

scholarly journals Influence of Two Desensitizer Agents on the Microleakage of Adhesively Luted Ceramic Inlays

2011 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. 077-083
Author(s):  
Esra Uzer Celik ◽  
Nazli Kumbaraci ◽  
Ebru Cal ◽  
Turkun Murat
Keyword(s):  
Resin Cement ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Class V ◽  
Ceramic Inlays ◽  
Adhesive Luting ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
And Control ◽  
Ceramic Inlay ◽  
Adhesive Cement

ABSTRACTObjectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of two different desensitizers (Hemaseal & Cide and Aqua Prep F) on the microleakage of ceramic inlay restorations luted with adhesive resin cement. Methods: Cylindrical Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of thirty extracted human third molars. One of the desensitizers (either Hemaseal&Cide, Advantage Dental Products Inc. or Aqua-Prep F, Bisco) was applied to the cavities. Ten samples were used as controls. Ceramic inlays were fabricated using the heat-pressed glass ceramic technique (IPS Empress II). Inlay restorations were luted using adhesive cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent). The restorations were properly finished, stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h and subjected to 1000 thermal cycles. The microleakage scores were examined using a stereomicroscope at the 30x magnification after each sample was stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin. The data were analyzed using Kruskall Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests (P=0.05). Results: Aqua-Prep F samples showed significantly higher microleakage scores at the enamel margins than did the Hemaseal & Cide and control groups (P<.05). Hemaseal & Cide application led to less microleakage than the other groups both at the enamel and dentin margins (P<.05). Conclusions: Hemaseal & Cide desensitizer decreased the microleakage process at the enamel and dentin margins of inlay restorations luted with adhesive luting cement, while Aqua-Prep F increased the leakage scores at the enamel margins. (Eur J Dent 2011;5:77-83)

Development of a Cavity Disinfectant Containing Antibacterial Monomer MDPB

2016 ◽  
Vol 95 (13) ◽  
pp. 1487-1493 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Hirose ◽  
R. Kitagawa ◽  
H. Kitagawa ◽  
H. Maezono ◽  
A. Mine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibacterial Activity ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Bacterial Species ◽  
Oral Bacteria ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement

An experimental cavity disinfectant (ACC) that is intended to be used for various direct and indirect restorations was prepared by adding an antibacterial monomer 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinum bromide (MDPB) at 5% into 80% ethanol. The antibacterial effectiveness of ACC and its influences on the bonding abilities of resin cements were investigated. To examine the antibacterial activity of unpolymerized MDPB, the minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations (MIC and MBC) were determined for Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus casei, Actinomyces naeslundii, Parvimonas micra, Enterococcus faecalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Antibacterial activities of ACC and the commercial cavity disinfectant containing 2% chlorhexidine and ethanol (CPS) were evaluated by agar disk diffusion tests through 7 bacterial species and by MIC and MBC measurement for S. mutans. The effects of ACC and CPS to kill bacteria in dentinal tubules were compared with an S. mutans–infected dentin model. Shear bond strength tests were used to examine the influences of ACC on the dentin-bonding abilities of a self-adhesive resin cement and a dual-cure resin cement used with a primer. Unpolymerized MDPB showed strong antibacterial activity against 7 oral bacteria. ACC produced inhibition zones against all bacterial species similar to CPS. For ACC and CPS, the MIC value for S. mutans was identical, and the MBC was similar with only a 1-step dilution difference (1:2). Treatment of infected dentin with ACC resulted in significantly greater bactericidal effects than CPS ( P < 0.05, analysis of variance and Tukey’s honest significant difference test). ACC showed no negative influences on the bonding abilities to dentin for both resin cements, while CPS reduced the bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement ( P < 0.05). This study clarified that the experimental cavity disinfectant containing 5% MDPB is more effective in vitro than the commercially available chlorhexidine solution to eradicate bacteria in dentin, without causing any adverse influences on the bonding abilities of resinous luting cements.

Bond Strength of Self-adhesive Resin Cement to Different Root Perforation Materials

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 1819-1821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Lemos Martins Sicuro ◽  
Marilisa Carneiro Leão Gabardo ◽  
Carla Castiglia Gonzaga ◽  
Nathaly Dias Morais ◽  
Flares Baratto-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement

scholarly journals The Effect of Self-adhesive and Self-etching Resin Cements on the Bond Strength of Nonmetallic Posts in Different Root Thirds

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto ◽  
Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavarez ◽  
Omar El-Mowafy ◽  
Matheus Coelho Bandeca ◽  
Thiago Soares Porto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Human Teeth ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Microtensile Testing ◽  
Special Machine ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Post Space

ABSTRACT Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of self-adhesive and self-etching resin cements on the bond strength of nonmetallic posts in different root regions. Materials and methods Sixty single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, endodontically treated, post-space prepared, and divided into six groups. Glass-fiber (GF) posts (Exacto, Angelus) and fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts (EverStick, StickTeck) were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (Breeze) (SA) (Pentral Clinical) and self-etching resin cement (Panavia-F) (SE) (Kuraray). Six 1-mm-thick rods were obtained from the cervical (C), middle (M), and apical (A) regions of the roots. The specimens were then subjected to microtensile testing in a special machine (BISCO; Schaumburg, IL, USA) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Results Means (and SD) of the MPa were: GF/SA/C: 14.32 (2.84), GF/SA/M: 10.69 (2.72), GF/SA/A: 6.77 (2.17), GF/SE/C: 11.56 (4.13), GF/SE/M: 6.49 (2.54), GF/SE/A: 3.60 (1.29), FRC/SA/C: 16.89 (2.66), FRC/SA/M: 13.18 (2.19), FRC/SA/A: 8.45 (1.77), FRC/SE/C: 13.69 (3.26), FRC/SE/M: 9.58 (2.23), FRC/SE/A: 5.62 (2.12). The difference among the regions was statistically significant for all groups (p < 0.05). The selfadhesive resin cement showed better results than the selfetching resin cement when compared to each post (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in bond strengths of the resin cements when comparable to each post (p > 0.05). Conclusion The bond strength values were significantly affected by the resin cement and the highest values were found for self-adhesive resin cement. How to cite this article da Silva MB, de Jesus Tavarez RR, de Assis FS, Tonetto MR, Porto TS, Bhandi SH, El-Mowafy O, de Toledo Porto Neto S, Bandeca MC. The Effect of Self-adhesive and Self-etching Resin Cements on the Bond Strength of Nonmetallic Posts in Different Root Thirds. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(2):147-153.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document