Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes

Cesar A G Arrais, Marcelo Giannini, Frederick Rueggeberg, David H. Pashley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of the problem: The effectiveness of bond strength using dual-polymerizing cementing systems ([DCSs] defined as the combination of dual-polymerizing bonding agents and resin cements) used with indirect restorations has not been evaluated when used solely with the autopolymerizing mode. Purpose: This study evaluated the in vitro microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of fourth- and fifth-generation DCSs with indirect composite restorations either light polymerized or autopolymerized. Material and methods: Occlusal dentin surfaces of 48 human third molars were exposed and flattened. Teeth were assigned to 8 groups (n = 6) according to the DCS and polymerizing modes: All-Bond2/Duolink (AB2), Optibond/Nexus2 (OPT), Bond1/Lute-it (B1), and Optibond Solo Dual Cure/Nexus2 (SOLO). Bonding agents were applied to dentin surfaces and left in the unpolymerized state. Resin cements were applied to prepolymerized resin discs (2 mm thick/Z250), which were subsequently bonded to the dentin surfaces. The restored teeth were light polymerized according to manufacturers' instructions (PP/XL 3000) or allowed to autopolymerize (AP). Restored teeth were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and were both mesio-distally and bucco-lingually sectioned to obtain multiple bonded beams (1.2 mm2 of cross-sectional area). Each specimen was tested in tension at a crosshead speed of 0.6 mm/min until failure. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). Failure patterns of tested specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Results: The mean (SD) MTBS values (MPa) were: AB2/PP: 36.9 (6.5); AB2/AP: 32.7 (7.3); B1/PP: 38.2 (7.0); B1/AP: 13.0 (4.2); SOLO/PP: 33.2 (7.2); SOLO/AP: 23.4 (3.4); OPT/PP: 30.8 (7.5); OPT/AP: 13.1 (5.8). The AP groups showed significantly lower MTBS than the PP groups (P<.0001), except for AB2, which showed no difference between polymerization modes (P=.2608). Conclusion: The autopolymerizing mode of some dual-polymerizing cement systems may not be effective in promoting bond strength.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-106
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume97
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2007

Fingerprint

Dentin
Resin Cements
Tooth
Light
Third Molar
Polymerization
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Analysis of Variance
Water
Optibond

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes. / Arrais, Cesar A G; Giannini, Marcelo; Rueggeberg, Frederick; Pashley, David H.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 97, No. 2, 01.02.2007, p. 99-106.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2dfaf394de7847bdbf7785c8cd701edc,
title = "Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes",
abstract = "Statement of the problem: The effectiveness of bond strength using dual-polymerizing cementing systems ([DCSs] defined as the combination of dual-polymerizing bonding agents and resin cements) used with indirect restorations has not been evaluated when used solely with the autopolymerizing mode. Purpose: This study evaluated the in vitro microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of fourth- and fifth-generation DCSs with indirect composite restorations either light polymerized or autopolymerized. Material and methods: Occlusal dentin surfaces of 48 human third molars were exposed and flattened. Teeth were assigned to 8 groups (n = 6) according to the DCS and polymerizing modes: All-Bond2/Duolink (AB2), Optibond/Nexus2 (OPT), Bond1/Lute-it (B1), and Optibond Solo Dual Cure/Nexus2 (SOLO). Bonding agents were applied to dentin surfaces and left in the unpolymerized state. Resin cements were applied to prepolymerized resin discs (2 mm thick/Z250), which were subsequently bonded to the dentin surfaces. The restored teeth were light polymerized according to manufacturers' instructions (PP/XL 3000) or allowed to autopolymerize (AP). Restored teeth were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and were both mesio-distally and bucco-lingually sectioned to obtain multiple bonded beams (1.2 mm2 of cross-sectional area). Each specimen was tested in tension at a crosshead speed of 0.6 mm/min until failure. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). Failure patterns of tested specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Results: The mean (SD) MTBS values (MPa) were: AB2/PP: 36.9 (6.5); AB2/AP: 32.7 (7.3); B1/PP: 38.2 (7.0); B1/AP: 13.0 (4.2); SOLO/PP: 33.2 (7.2); SOLO/AP: 23.4 (3.4); OPT/PP: 30.8 (7.5); OPT/AP: 13.1 (5.8). The AP groups showed significantly lower MTBS than the PP groups (P<.0001), except for AB2, which showed no difference between polymerization modes (P=.2608). Conclusion: The autopolymerizing mode of some dual-polymerizing cement systems may not be effective in promoting bond strength.",
author = "Arrais, {Cesar A G} and Marcelo Giannini and Frederick Rueggeberg and Pashley, {David H.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "99--106",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes

AU - Arrais, Cesar A G

AU - Giannini, Marcelo

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick

AU - Pashley, David H.

PY - 2007/2/1

Y1 - 2007/2/1

N2 - Statement of the problem: The effectiveness of bond strength using dual-polymerizing cementing systems ([DCSs] defined as the combination of dual-polymerizing bonding agents and resin cements) used with indirect restorations has not been evaluated when used solely with the autopolymerizing mode. Purpose: This study evaluated the in vitro microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of fourth- and fifth-generation DCSs with indirect composite restorations either light polymerized or autopolymerized. Material and methods: Occlusal dentin surfaces of 48 human third molars were exposed and flattened. Teeth were assigned to 8 groups (n = 6) according to the DCS and polymerizing modes: All-Bond2/Duolink (AB2), Optibond/Nexus2 (OPT), Bond1/Lute-it (B1), and Optibond Solo Dual Cure/Nexus2 (SOLO). Bonding agents were applied to dentin surfaces and left in the unpolymerized state. Resin cements were applied to prepolymerized resin discs (2 mm thick/Z250), which were subsequently bonded to the dentin surfaces. The restored teeth were light polymerized according to manufacturers' instructions (PP/XL 3000) or allowed to autopolymerize (AP). Restored teeth were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and were both mesio-distally and bucco-lingually sectioned to obtain multiple bonded beams (1.2 mm2 of cross-sectional area). Each specimen was tested in tension at a crosshead speed of 0.6 mm/min until failure. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). Failure patterns of tested specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Results: The mean (SD) MTBS values (MPa) were: AB2/PP: 36.9 (6.5); AB2/AP: 32.7 (7.3); B1/PP: 38.2 (7.0); B1/AP: 13.0 (4.2); SOLO/PP: 33.2 (7.2); SOLO/AP: 23.4 (3.4); OPT/PP: 30.8 (7.5); OPT/AP: 13.1 (5.8). The AP groups showed significantly lower MTBS than the PP groups (P<.0001), except for AB2, which showed no difference between polymerization modes (P=.2608). Conclusion: The autopolymerizing mode of some dual-polymerizing cement systems may not be effective in promoting bond strength.

AB - Statement of the problem: The effectiveness of bond strength using dual-polymerizing cementing systems ([DCSs] defined as the combination of dual-polymerizing bonding agents and resin cements) used with indirect restorations has not been evaluated when used solely with the autopolymerizing mode. Purpose: This study evaluated the in vitro microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of fourth- and fifth-generation DCSs with indirect composite restorations either light polymerized or autopolymerized. Material and methods: Occlusal dentin surfaces of 48 human third molars were exposed and flattened. Teeth were assigned to 8 groups (n = 6) according to the DCS and polymerizing modes: All-Bond2/Duolink (AB2), Optibond/Nexus2 (OPT), Bond1/Lute-it (B1), and Optibond Solo Dual Cure/Nexus2 (SOLO). Bonding agents were applied to dentin surfaces and left in the unpolymerized state. Resin cements were applied to prepolymerized resin discs (2 mm thick/Z250), which were subsequently bonded to the dentin surfaces. The restored teeth were light polymerized according to manufacturers' instructions (PP/XL 3000) or allowed to autopolymerize (AP). Restored teeth were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and were both mesio-distally and bucco-lingually sectioned to obtain multiple bonded beams (1.2 mm2 of cross-sectional area). Each specimen was tested in tension at a crosshead speed of 0.6 mm/min until failure. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). Failure patterns of tested specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Results: The mean (SD) MTBS values (MPa) were: AB2/PP: 36.9 (6.5); AB2/AP: 32.7 (7.3); B1/PP: 38.2 (7.0); B1/AP: 13.0 (4.2); SOLO/PP: 33.2 (7.2); SOLO/AP: 23.4 (3.4); OPT/PP: 30.8 (7.5); OPT/AP: 13.1 (5.8). The AP groups showed significantly lower MTBS than the PP groups (P<.0001), except for AB2, which showed no difference between polymerization modes (P=.2608). Conclusion: The autopolymerizing mode of some dual-polymerizing cement systems may not be effective in promoting bond strength.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847305853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847305853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.007

DO - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.007

M3 - Article

VL - 97

SP - 99

EP - 106

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 2

ER -