Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 290
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 86-92

Bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin after 6-month water storage

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar-Liberté, Sénégal

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mouhamed Sarr
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Cheikh Anta Diop University, BP 17256, Dakar-Liberté
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2321-4619.188231

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To evaluate the bonding effectiveness to dentin of eight dual-cure composite cements after 6-month water storage. Materials and Methods: This study is a follow-up of a recent study that investigated the 1-week bonding effectiveness of feldspathic ceramic blocks luted to dentin using the same composite cements and experimental protocol. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different composite cements, including two etch-and-rinse cements (Calibra, Dentsply; Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent), two self-etch cements (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray; Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray), and four self-adhesive cements (Unicem, 3M ESPE; Maxcem, Kerr; Monocem, Shofu; G-Cem, GC), was measured using a standardized μTBS protocol after 6-month water storage. As control, a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE, Kuraray) combined with a microhybrid restorative composite (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was used. Twenty-seven human third molars were used with specific preparation, and after 6-month water storage, microspecimens were prepared and subjected to a μTBS test. Results: The mean μTBS varied from 0 to 26.1 MPa, the latter being measured for the control adhesive composite combination. All specimens prepared using the self-adhesive composite cements Maxcem and Monocem failed during specimen processing. Most specimens failed at the dentin-cement interface, except the self-etch composite cement Panavia F2.0 that failed in 53% of the cases at the cement-ceramic interface and the control of which all specimens failed in the resin part of the microspecimens. Conclusion: The largely varying bonding effectiveness recorded for the different composite cements highlights the need for material specifications. Such specifications should also include a bond durability test as the specimens in the present study that were subjected to 6-month water storage. To lute ceramic restorations that allow light transmission to a sufficient degree, a conventional light-curable adhesive and composite should be considered.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1432    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal