SummaryBackground/Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of glass ceramic inlay system using 2 antibacterial adhesive luting protocols with 2 cementation techniques to bur-cut dentin.Material and Methods: Class I inlay cavities with 6-degree occlusal divergence and size of 6-, 3- and 2-mm in length, width and depth, were prepared on extracted human molars, randomly assigned to 2 main groups; each to 1 cementation technique, with or without immediate-dentin-bonding (IDB or NIDB) further divided into 3 subgroups; 2 to 2 antibacterial luting protocols, traditional (T) and experimental (E); and 1 to a control (C) group. In group IDBT, IDB-E and IDB-C dentin bonding was applied immediately after cavity preparation. In group NIDB-T, NIDB-E and NIDB-C dentin bonding was applied just before cementation of the restorations. The cavities in IDB-T and NIDB-T were treated with 2% chlorhexidine-digluconate (CHX) prior to dentin bonding application. The cavities in IDB-E and NIDB-E were treated only with dentin bonding system containing MDPB (12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide) active monomer featuring antibacterial effect. IDB-C and NIDB-C served as control. Dual-cure adhesive resin cement was used for the cementation of lithium disilicate-based ceramic inlay restorations. Fourteen test specimens per group were prepared for microtensile testing and consecutively subjected to tensile load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The mode of failure was observed under SEM and evaluated for each group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to investigate the statistical difference between groups (α=0.05).Results: The microtensile load was 5.96 MPa (median: 5.99 MPa) for IDB-T, 7.23 MPa (median: 7.55 MPa) for IDB-E, 6.68 MPa (median: 6.56 MPa) for IDB-C, 7.24 MPa (median: 7.20 MPa) for NIDB-T, 6.98 MPa (median: 6.30 MPa) for NIDB-E, and 7.02 MPa (median: 6.99 MPa) for NIDB-C, with no statistical difference between the groups (p>0.05). SEM monitoring for mode of failure revealed either cohesive (within resin cement) or adhesive-cohesive (mostly within resin cement along with partially involved areas between resin cement and ceramic restoration) character.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study, none of the tested antibacterial luting protocols with either cementation technique was found to be superior in terms of bond strength.
Effect of Resin Coating on Dentin Bonding of Resin Cement in Class II Cavities
