Structural reliability and bonding performance of resin luting agents to dentin and enamel
Introduction
Dental bonding of indirect restorative materials or intracanal post systems using resin luting agents can be achieved by following two distinct adhesive strategies: conventional/total-etch or self-adhesive [1]. While the former require the application of an acidic substance followed by adhesive agents prior to the bonding procedure in order to allow proper demineralization and resin infiltration to the substrate; the latter eliminates the pre-use of any adhesive system, since the luting agent itself possesses the ability to demineralize and infiltrate dentin and enamel with resin monomers [2]. Despite their adequate clinical applicability, the current literature still diverges on which adhesion strategy would perform better when bonding indirect composite restorations [3,4], so that new studies on this topic are still necessary, attempting to compare the bonding performance of different materials to both dentin and enamel.
Bond strength testing has been broadly considered for verifying the adhesion/retention of restorative materials to the tooth. However, these tests usually lack in standardization, leading to great variation data [[5], [6], [7]]. In light of improving the reliability and interpretation of bond strength tests, studies have been applying Weibull statistics as an additional measure of strength data, offering a strong theoretical basis of understanding the structural reliability and strength properties of fractured samples, especially in dental applications [8]. To date, there are only few studies focusing on the evaluation of the structural reliability of dental bonds obtained with the application of resin luting agents.
Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the bonding performance and structural reliability of resin composite indirect restorations luted to dentin or enamel using distinct resin luting agents. The hypothesis of the study was that conventional resin luting agents would present higher bonding performance than self-adhesive materials, regardless of the dental substrate.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
This study evaluated two variable factors: dental substrate (dentin or enamel) and resin luting agent (total-etch or self-adhesive). Four materials were investigated: three total-etch (Allcem; Allcem Core; and RelyX ARC) and one self-adhesive (RelyX U200). Information on their manufacturer, chemical composition, inorganic filler fraction, and bonding protocol is given in Table 1. All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions.
Results
DC was higher (p ≤ 0.007) for RelyX ARC (78.4% ± 1.9) than Allcem Core (64.9% ± 1.7), Allcem (56.6% ± 3.3), and RelyX U200 (56.4% ± 5.6), which have not differed between each other (p ≥ 0.067). Concerning pH, RelyX U200 showed the lowest value (2.2 ± 0.1), which was lower than the other materials (p < 0.001). Allcem Core (4.9 ± 0.3) and RelyX ARC (4.8 ± 0.4) showed similar pH values (p = 0.880) and higher than Allcem (3.8 ± 0.1) (p ≤ 0.003).
Fig. 1A shows the bond strength results of the study.
Discussion
In this study, three conventional (total-etch) luting agents were tested (Allcem, Allcem Core, and RelyX ARC), opposed by only one self-adhesive material (RelyX U200). It has been hypothesized that the former would present greater bonding performance than the latter, which was indeed accepted. While RelyX U200 presented nearly 46–57% less adhesion ability to dentin as compared to conventional materials, the reduction of adhesiveness was even greater in enamel (47–64%). One may consider that the
Conclusions
In this in vitro study, total-etch resin luting agents performed better than the self-adhesive material, at both dentin and enamel, with Allcem resulting in an overall greater bonding ability and lower probability to failure. Degree of conversion and pH of the luting agent did not seem to influence on the bonding performance of resin luting agents.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) Finance Code 001; under grant number: 88882.346901/2019-01.
References (27)
- et al.
Dental cements for luting and bonding restorations: self-adhesive resin cements
Dent Clin North Am
(2017) - et al.
Early clinical performance of resin cements in glass-ceramic posterior restorations in adult vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
J Prosthet Dent
(2020) - et al.
A practical and systematic review of weibull statistics for reporting strengths of dental materials
Dent Mater
(2010) - et al.
Evaluation of alternative photoinitiator systems in two-step self-etch adhesive systems
Dent Mater
(2020) - et al.
Which materials would account for a better mechanical behavior for direct endocrown restorations?
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater
(2020) - et al.
Microtensile bond strength of resin cements to caries-affected dentin
J Prosthet Dent
(2013) - et al.
Aspects of the final phase of enamel formation as evidenced by observations of superficial enamel of human third molars using scanning electron microscopy
Arch Oral Biol
(2018) - et al.
Correlation between degree of conversion, resin-dentin bond strength and nanoleakage of simplified etch-and-rinse adhesives
Dent Mater
(2013) - et al.
Polymerization shrinkage stress of resin-based dental materials: a systematic review and meta-analyses of composition strategies
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater
(2018) - et al.
Calcium hydroxide, ph-neutralization and formulation of model self-adhesive resin cements
Dent Mater
(2013)