SUMMARY
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 (mm3): 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 (mm3): 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 (mm3): 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 (mm3): 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 between the two wear models for the light-cure groups and a good relationship for the chemical-cure groups. The observations using SEM showed differences in filler particle shape and size among the cements and the resultant effect of the wear challenges. The worn surfaces of each cement were essentially the same for both light-cure and chemical-cure methods. The bulk wear model and new slit (gap) model for evaluation of simulated generalized wear of luting agents demonstrated significant differences (p<0.05) in relative wear among three self-adhesive resin cements and between visible light- and chemical-cure techniques.
Evaluation of Cements Curing Modes Regarding Microleakage During Cementation of E-max Laminate Veneers
