[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.

132]

Original Article

Bonding effectiveness of contemporary

composite cements to dentin after
6month water storage
Mouhamed Sarr, Babacar Faye, Fatou LeyeBenoist, Khaly Bane, Adjaratou Wakha Aidara, Babacar Tour
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Cheikh Anta Diop University, DakarLibert, Sngal

Address for correspondence: Dr.Mouhamed Sarr, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Cheikh Anta Diop University, BP 17256, DakarLibert, Sngal.
Email:mouhamed.sarr@ucad.edu.sn

ABSTRACT Purpose: To evaluate the bonding effectiveness to dentin of eight dualcure composite cements after
6month water storage. Materials and Methods: This study is a followup of a recent study that investigated
the 1week bonding effectiveness of feldspathic ceramic blocks luted to dentin using the same composite
cements and experimental protocol. The microtensile bond strength(TBS) of different composite
cements, including two etchandrinse cements(Calibra, Dentsply; Variolink II, IvoclarVivadent), two
selfetch cements (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray; Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray), and four selfadhesive
cements(Unicem, 3M ESPE; Maxcem, Kerr; Monocem, Shofu; GCem, GC), was measured using a
standardized TBS protocol after 6month water storage. As control, a twostep selfetch adhesive(Clearfil
SE, Kuraray) combined with a microhybrid restorative composite (Clearfil APX, Kuraray) was used.
Twentyseven human third molars were used with specific preparation, and after 6month water storage,
microspecimens were prepared and subjected to a TBS test. Results: The mean TBS varied from 0
to 26.1 MPa, the latter being measured for the control adhesive composite combination. All specimens
prepared using the selfadhesive composite cements Maxcem and Monocem failed during specimen
processing. Most specimens failed at the dentincement interface, except the selfetch composite cement
Panavia F2.0 that failed in 53% of the cases at the cementceramic 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 6month water storage. To lute ceramic restorations that allow light transmission to a
sufficient degree, a conventional lightcurable adhesive and composite should be considered.

Keywords: Etchandrinse cement, luting cement, selfadhesive cement, selfetch cement

INTRODUCTION minimalinvasively.[1] Following such an approach,

ceramics can be used since they can be bonded to the
Recent developments in adhesive dentistry enable remaining sound, especially for large restorations
teeth to be preserved longer when they are restored
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Access this article online Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows
Quick Response Code: others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work noncommercially, as long as the
Website: author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
www.jresdent.org
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com

DOI: How to cite this article: Sarr M, Faye B, Leye-Benoist F, Bane K,

10.4103/2321-4619.188231 Aidara AW, Tour B. Bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite
cements to dentin after 6-month water storage. J Res Dent 2016;4:86-92.

86 2016 Journal of Restorative Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.132]
Sarr, etal.: Six-months bonding effectiveness of composite cements to dentin
where conventional composites are not indicated. The
clinical success of bonded ceramic restorations depends
primarily on a good bond to tooth/dentin and an optimal
marginal fit after cementation. Further, adhesive resin
type and the resin cement affected the mean bond
strength.[2]
Todays composite cements can be classified into three
groups according to the adhesive approach employed to
bond the cement to the tooth structure. Etchandrinse
composite cements utilize an etchandrinse adhesive,
including a phosphoric acid etching step, followed by
a rinse phase. Selfetch composite cements utilize a
selfetch adhesive that does not need to be rinsed off
while finally, selfadhesive cements as per manufacturers
instructions do not require any pretreatment at all,
simplifying the clinical procedure considerably.[3] At
the restoration side, glasscontaining ceramics are best
etched with hydrofluoric acid, silanized, and coated
with an unfilled resin[4] while oxideceramics require
specific primers though currently there is no consensus
which luting protocol is most effective. Many of the
multistep composite cements have been documented to
perform satisfactory.[5] Nonetheless, little information is
available in the literature about their longterm bonding
effectiveness, this to even a much larger extent for
selfadhesive composite cements.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the bond
durability of different composite cements that were
used to lute feldspathic ceramic blocks onto dentin. The
hypothesis tested was that after 6month water storage,
no difference in microtensile bond strength (TBS) to
dentin exists for the different cements tested.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study follows a previous study[5] that investigated
the shortterm or immediate bonding effectiveness of
composite cements that were employed to lute feldspathic
ceramic blocks onto dentin. All materials presently
employed were exactly the same(same batch numbers)
as in the previous study, with the tests executed by the
same operators following the same experimental protocol.
Eight composite cements were used that include two
etchandrinse, two selfetch, and four selfadhesive
composite cements[Table 1]. As control, the mild,
twostep selfetch adhesive Clearfil SE(Kuraray, Tokyo,
Japan) that can be regarded as the gold standard selfetch
adhesive was used in combination with the microhybrid
restorative composite Clearfil APX(Kuraray).
Tooth preparation
Noncarious human molars gathered following informed
consent approved by the Commission for Medical Ethics
Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 4 / Issue - 3 / Sep-Dec 2016 87
of the K.U. Leuven were stored in 0.5% chloramine/
water at 4C and were used within 3months after
extraction. Flat dentin surfaces were obtained by
removing coronal enamel with an IsoMet lowspeed
diamond saw (IsoMet 1000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL,
USA). A standardized smear layer was produced first
grinding with a SiCpaper (600grit). Dentin surfaces
were verified for the absence of enamel and/or pulp
tissue using a stereomicroscope(Wild M5A, Heerbrugg,
Switzerland). Subsequently, they were cleaned with
pumice paste, rinsed with water, and airdried(without
desiccating dentin), unless mentioned differently, as for
the selfadhesive composite cement MonoCem as per
manufacturers instructions.
Ceramic block preparation
The feldspathic ceramic computeraided design/
computeraided manufacturing(CAD/CAM) blocs(VITA
Mark II for Cerec/inlab, Vita, Bad Sckingen, Germany)
were sectioned in 3 smaller blocs of approximately
8mm8mm and a thickness of 4.15mm. The
ceramic surface was etched with hydrofluoric acid(IPS
Ceramic Etching Gel, IvoclarVivadent, Schaan,
Liechtenstein) for 60 s after which the ceramic surface
was thoroughly rinsed with water and airdried. Next,
silane (Monobond S, IvoclarVivadent) was applied and
left undisturbed for 60 s after which the surface was again
airdried. Finally, to improve resin infiltration into the
etchpits in the ceramic block, fluid, unfilled bonding
resin, Heliobond (IvoclarVivadent) was applied but
not lightcured.
Luting procedures
The ceramic blocks were luted to dentin using the
different cements, each strictly following the respective
manufacturers recommendations[Table1]. Each block
was luted under a fixed pressure of 1kg and lightcured
for 20 s from each side(5 s20 s)(Demetron Optilux500,
Kerr, Orange, USA), with a light output of not less than
550mW/cm2(100 s of light emission in total).
Microtensile bond strength testing
After 6months of water storage at 37C, the specimens
were sectioned with a watercooled diamond saw(IsoMet
1000) in both x and y directions, perpendicular to
the adhesive interface to obtain about 16 sticks with
a crosssectional area of approximately 1 mm2. The
dimensions of the sticks were measured by means of a
digital caliper(Mitutoyo, Kanagawa, Japan). The sticks
originating from the outer area, where the ceramic
block was bonded to enamel, were excluded from the
study. After examination under a light microscope for
the absence of enamel, the specimens were fixed to a
BIOMAT jig[6] with cyanoacrylate glue (Model Repair
II, DentsplySankin, Ohtawara, Japan). This jig was then
[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.132]

Sarr, etal.: Six-months bonding effectiveness of composite cements to dentin

Table1: List of composite cements tested with their application procedure

Composite cement Dentin primer Application procedure
Selfadhesive
Rely X Unicem(Aplicap) None Activate the capsule and mix the capsule for 10 s
3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany(Lot 256677) (RotoMix,3M ESPE)
Apply on dentin
Seat the restoration
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
Maxcem None Apply on dentin with automix tip
Kerr, Orange, USA(Lot 32857) Seat the restoration
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
MonoCem None Leave tooth surface slightly moist(gently dry after rinsing with
Shofu, Kyoto, Japan(Lot 060719)(Lot 060605) water)
Apply on dentin with automix tip
Seat the restoration
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
GCem None Tap the capsule on a hard surface and activate the capsule;
GC, Tokyo, Japan(Lot 0608220) mix for 10 s(RotoMix, 3M ESPE)
Apply on dentin
Seat the restoration within 40 s
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
Selfetch
Panavia F2.0 ED Primer II Mix equal amounts of ED Primer II A and B and apply; Gently
Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan(Lot 41196) airdry after 30s
Dispense equal amounts of paste A and B and mix A and B
for 20 s
Apply on dentin
Lightcure for 20s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
Clearfil Esthetic cement ED Primer II Mix equal amounts of ED PRIMER II A and B and apply;
Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan(Lot 41111) Gently airdry after 30 s
Apply on dentin with automix tip
Seat the restoration
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
Etchandrinse
Calibra Prime and bond Apply etching gel(De Trey conditioner) on dentin for 15 s and
Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany(Lot 060315) NT and selfcure rinse for 15 s
activator Mix equal amounts of prime and bond NT and selfcure
activator into a mixing well
Apply on dentin and leave for 20 s. Gently airdry for 5 s and
lightcure for 10 s
Mix equal amount of Calibra base and catalyst for 20-30 s
until uniform
Apply a thin layer onto the restoration and seat the restoration
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
Variolink II(Excite DSC) Excite DSC Etch dentin for 15 s and rinse with H3PO4(totaletch,
IvoclarVivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein IvoclarVivadent)
(LotJ22596) (Shade transparent) Apply excite DSC with a brush on dentin surface and agitate
for at least for 10 s
Dry for 1-3 s; the surface should have a uniform glossy
appearance
Lightcure for 20 s
Mix equal amounts of base and catalyst paste for 10 s
Apply with a brush on dentin
Lightcure for 20 s from each side(520 s) while maintaining
positive pressure(1 kg)
Contd...
88 Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 4 / Issue - 3 / Sep-Dec 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.132]
Sarr, etal.: Six-months bonding effectiveness of composite cements to dentin
Table1: List of composite cements tested with their application procedure
Composite cement Dentin primer
Control
Clearfil SE Bond with Clearfil APX Clearfil SE bond
Kuraray, Japan(Lot 41460) +(Lot 000125)
(Shade A3)
fixed in an LRX testing machine(Lloyd, Hampshire, UK)
with a load cell of 100 N after which the specimens were
stressed in tension at a crosshead speed of 1.0mm/min.
The bond strength was calculated in MPa, derived from
dividing the imposed force(in N) at the time of fracture
by the bond area(in mm2). Specimens that failed prior to
testing(socalled pretesting failure[ptf]) were explicitly
noted and assigned 0 MPa in further analysis. The mode
of failure was determined with a stereomicroscope(Wild
M5A, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) at magnification of50
and recorded as cohesive failure in dentin, failure
at the resindentin interface, cohesive failure in the
cement, failure at the cementceramic interface,
cohesive failure in the ceramic, or as mixed failure
for any combination of the previous.
Statistical analysis
The bond strength values were subjected to a
KruskalWallis test at a level of significance of 5%.
To assess reduction in bonding effectiveness, the
immediate and aged bond strengths were pairwise
compared to the results of the former study using an
unpaired nonparametric MannWhitney Utest.
RESULTS
The TBS results are shown in Table2 and graphically
presented in Figure1. After 6month water storage,
significant differences in TBS were observed among
the cements tested (KruskalWallis, P<0.0001). The
multistep cements revealed a TBS that was not
different among each other, except for Variolink II,
for which almost all specimens failed before testing;
thus, a very low TBS was recorded. The control
selfetch adhesive/restorative composite combination
exhibited the highest bond strength after 6month water
storage, which was not significantly different from all
multistep cements, except Variolink II[Table2]. For
the selfadhesive cements MonoCem and Maxcem, on
the other hand, 100% pretesting failures were recorded
after 6month water storage. In addition, almost 40%
of ptfs were recorded for GCem while Rely X Unicem
was the only selfadhesive cement to exhibit almost
no ptfs (4%) after 6month water storage. Failure
analysis revealed that after 6month water storage,
most specimens failed at the dentin/cement interface,
except for Panavia F2.0, of which 53% of the specimens
Application procedure
Apply Primer and leave it in place for 20 s
Gently air dry
Apply bond, thin with air pressure and lightcure for 10 s
Apply Clearfil APX and lightcure for 20s from each
side(520 s) while maintaining positive pressure(1 kg)
failed at the cement/ceramic interface. The specimens
of the control selfetch adhesive/restorative composite
combination failed entirely in the resin part of the
TBS stick.
Comparing the aged 6month TBS data to the
immediate 1week TBS data, a significant reduction
in TBS was observed for all cements except the
selfetch multistep composite cements. Arelatively
small TBS reduction was also observed for the control
selfetch adhesive/restorative composite combination,
of which the TBS remained the highest of all groups
after 6month water storage. The highest bond strength
reductions were recorded for the selfadhesive composite
cements Maxcem and MonoCem, with also a reduction in
TBS of 92% measured for the etchandrinse composite
cement Variolink II.
DISCUSSION
The study hypothesis that after 6month water storage,
no difference in TBS to dentin exists for the different
composite cements tested was rejected.
In this study, the bonding effectiveness of eight
contemporary luting agents to bond ceramic blocks to
dentin was compared. As control, the gold standard
twostep selfetch adhesive Clearfil SE in combination
with the microhybrid restorative composite Clearfil APX
was chosen. Since the composition of composite cement
resembles very much the composition of a restorative
composite, the latter can also be used as luting agent
on the condition that it is sufficiently fluid to reach a
sufficiently thin film thickness and that light can be
sufficiently transmitted through the ceramic restoration
to be adequately cured.[7] In this study, the ceramic
blocks were made of feldspathic ceramic(VITA Mark II)
which transmits light relatively well, also considering
the small dimensions of the blocks. To ensure sufficient
polymerization, every specimen was lightcured for in
total 100 s. All composite cements tested in this study
were dualcuring. Their polymerization can be initiated
by activation of light and chemical initiators due to
which they remain the materials of choice to lute indirect
toothcolored restorations with a thickness of 4mm or
more.[7]
Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 4 / Issue - 3 / Sep-Dec 2016 89
[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.132]

Sarr, etal.: Six-months bonding effectiveness of composite cements to dentin

Table2: Mean microtensile bond strength and standard deviation after 6month water storage(pretesting failure included as
0 MPa)
6 months TBS Compared to 1week
MPa(SD) ptf/n Statistical Percentage Percentage Pc
groupsa interface failureb
Rely X Unicem 9.2(4.9) 2/46 c, d, e 99 55 <0.0001
Maxcem 0(0) 45/45 f 100 100 0.0017
MonoCem 0(0) 45/45 f 100 100 0.0125
GCem 4.4(4.9) 16/41 d, e, f 100 74 <0.0001
Panavia F2.0 20(7.6) 0/36 a, b, c 41 3 0.4715
Clearfil Esthetic cement 14.1(9.2) 3/32 b, c, d 95 3 0.9805
Calibra 14.6(6.1) 0/35 a, b, c, d 89 32 <0.0001
Variolink II 1.3(3.9) 40/47 e, f 100 92 <0.0001
Clearfil SE bond with APX 26.1(6.2) 0/34 a, b, c 0 18 0.0032
a
KruskalWallis(P<0.05), bFracture surface analysis by stereomicroscope, cMannWhitney Utest comparing 1week and 6 months TBS. SD=Standard deviation, SE=Standard error,
TBS=Microtensile bond strength, ptf=Pretesting failure

using a wellestablished technique,[10,12] consisting of

hydrofluoric acid etching to produce a microretentive
surface and subsequent silane treatment to achieve an
additional chemical bond to the ceramic block. This
treatment protocol ensured a favorable and consistent
bonding performance and is essential for bonding
selfadhesive resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic.[13]

The same TBS testing was conducted for all specimens

to avoid bias.[14]

As a result, bonding effectiveness to the ceramic block

Figure1: BoxWhisker plots of the microtensile bond strength(MPa)
after 6month water storage. The central horizontal line represents the
median and the dot the mean value. The whiskers denote minimum and
maximum values. As a reference, the mean microtensile bond strength
measured after 1week water storage is indicated by an asterisk
As recommended by many other researchers, the
cements in this study were applied under constant
pressure(1kg) before being lightcured for 20 s from each
side. Doing so, we ensured that the cement intimately
adapted to the dentin surface and simulated the pressure
applied clinically.[10] To ensure a maximal mechanical
strength, all composite cements were lightcured in this
study, indicating that their actual polymerization was
initiated both chemically and by light. The use of dualcuring
luting composites was shown to optimize the dentin bond
under thick ceramic layers.[6] Further, the curing mode was
decisive for the bonding effectiveness of adhesively luted
composite CAD/CAM restorations to dentin. Lightcuring
of adhesive and cement revealed the highest TBS which
decreased significantly for all other curing modes.[11]
The ceramic blocks used in this study were made of
feldspathic ceramic(VITA Mark II) and were prepared
appeared very effective, and only for Panavia F2.0,
some failures at this ceramic composite interface were
observed after 6month water storage. Little differences
were also found between different ceramic groups, where
failure type was primarily adhesive between cement and
ceramic.[15]
Therefore, all differences in bonding effectiveness
[3,4,8,9] observed in the present study can be largely related to
differences in bonding performance of the composite
cement. Moreover, as some of the better performing
cements showed no bond strength reduction at all, the
bond to the ceramic block is considered as very durable.
According to Suyama, when luted to smearcovered
dentine, all selfadhesive composite cements appeared
equally effective and durable as the etchandrinse and
selfetch multistep composite cements.[16]
Our results showed that bonding effectiveness of
all selfadhesive cements decreased upon aging in
water[Table2]. For two of them(Maxcem and MonoCem),
the reduction in TBS was so severe that the bond strength
could not be measured anymore after 6month water
storage. The bestperforming selfadhesive cement(Rely
X Unicem), on the other hand, had only a limited amount

90 Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 4 / Issue - 3 / Sep-Dec 2016

[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.132]
Sarr, etal.: Six-months bonding effectiveness of composite cements to dentin
of pretesting failures(4%) and did not differ significantly
from the most betterperforming multistep cements.
Compositionwise, this is the only cement that comes in
a powderliquid formulation. For all other selfadhesive
cements, both components are pastes that are mixed by
application through an automix tip. This delivery may
appear more userfriendly as no mixing step is needed;
however, as both types require neither any handmixing
nor pretreatment of the surface, both can be regarded
very easy to use. The powderliquid formulation may
have the advantage of dealing more effectively with
different smear layer types, as suggested in a former
study.[7] All these selfadhesive cements appear relatively
wellbalanced cocktails that have to fulfill different tasks.
As a result, small differences in composition may have a
significant effect on the bonding performance as was also
observed in the current study. In addition, the physical
integrity of the luting material itself is in part reflected
in the bond strength as this test measures the strength of
the whole ceramiccementdentin assembly, to which the
material strength also contributes. These cements must
also age differently as was proven before.[4]
When luted to smearcovered dentine, all selfadhesive
composite cements appeared equally effective and
durable as the etchandrinse and selfetch
multistep composite cements.[16]
Both selfetch composite cements tested(Panavia F2.0 and
Clearfil Esthetic Cement) employ the same primer. This
primer is very similar to the primer employed in the control
group and is based on the same functional monomer:
10methacryloyloxydecyldihydrogenphosphate
(10MDP). This monomer is known for its chemical
bonding capacity to hydroxyapatite.[17] The differences
in TBS observed between both cements, though not
significant, must therefore be attributed to the specific
composition of the cement itself, differences in mechanical
properties, and/or the presence of material defects(voids,
cracks,). Regarding the composition, Clearfil esthetic
cement does not contain MDP which renders the cement
more hydrophobic. This increased hydrophobicity may
have affected surface wetting but may on the other hand
has made the cement more resistant against hydrolysis.
Panavia F2.0 was mixed manually with a spatula in
contrast to the automix syringe provided with Clearfil
esthetic cement. However, this did not seem to have
affected the bond durability. Nevertheless, bond strength
of all MDPbased cementation methodologies appeared
relatively stable and performed among the best after
6month water storage.
The bonding effectiveness of composite cements depends
largely on the adhesive approach and the luting agents
have influence on bond strength between restorative
materials and dentin.[18]
Both etchandrinse composite cements tested
employ a twostep etchandrinse adhesive. Twostep
etchandrinse adhesives are however not so reputed
when it comes to bond durability.[19] This may explain
the large reduction in bond strength, and the increased
amount of interfacial failures observed for these two
cements upon 6month water storage.
In this study, the adhesion to the ceramic part of the
interface complex was not a variable. Therefore, we opted
for an optimized protocol comprising a micromechanical
and chemical pretreatment of the surface by air abrasion
and silane treatment.[15] This protocol proofed to be
effective, as no failures at this location were observed,
despite the 6months water storage.
CONCLUSION
The following conclusions could be retained:
The longterm bonding effectiveness of some
selfadhesive cements is very questionable
The restorative composite Clearfil APX is suitable
when used as cement for luting feldspathic ceramics.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the manufacturers for
supplying materials for this study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Van MeerbeekB, De MunckJ, YoshidaY, InoueS, VargasM,
VijayP, etal. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel
and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent
2003;28:21535.
2. VanderleiA, PassosSP, zcan M, BottinoMA, ValandroLF.
Durability of adhesion between feldspathic ceramic and resin
cements: Effect of adhesive resin, polymerization mode of resin
cement, and aging. JProsthodont 2013;22:196202.
3. GoracciC, CuryAH, CantoroA, PapacchiniF, TayFR, FerrariM.
Microtensile bond strength and interfacial properties of selfetching
and selfadhesive resin cements used to lute composite onlays
under different seating forces. JAdhes Dent 2006;8:32735.
4. MagniE, IlieN, HickelR, FerrariM. Effect of storage on the
mechanical properties of selfadhesive cements. Dent Mater
2009;25:e234.
5. SarrM, MineA, De MunckJ, CardosoMV, KaneAW, VrevenJ,
etal. Immediate bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite
cements to dentin. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:56977.
6. RathkeA, HokenmaierG, MucheR, HallerB. Effectiveness of
the bond established between ceramic inlays and dentin using
different luting protocols. JAdhes Dent 2012;14:14754.
7. De MunckJ, VargasM, Van LanduytK, HikitaK, LambrechtsP,
Van MeerbeekB. Bonding of an autoadhesive luting material to
enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004;20:96371.
Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 4 / Issue - 3 / Sep-Dec 2016 91
[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, IP: 114.125.182.132]
Sarr, etal.: Six-months bonding effectiveness of composite cements to dentin
8. ChieffiN, ChersoniS, PapacchiniF, VanoM, GoracciC,
DavidsonCL, etal. The effect of application sustained
seating pressure on adhesive luting procedure. Dent Mater
2007;23:15964.
9. HikitaK, Van MeerbeekB, De MunckJ, IkedaT, Van LanduytK,
MaidaT, etal. Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents
to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2007;23:7180.
10. BrentelAS, OzcanM, ValandroLF, Alara LG, AmaralR,
BottinoMA. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to
feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens
in dry and aged conditions. Dent Mater 2007;23:132331.
11. Lhrs AK, PongprueksaP, De MunckJ, GeurtsenW,
Van MeerbeekB. Curing mode affects bond strength of adhesively
luted composite CAD/CAM restorations to dentin. Dent Mater
2014;30:28191.
12. PisaniProencaJ, ErhardtMC, ValandroLF, GutierrezAcevesG,
BolanosCarmonaMV, Del CastilloSalmeronR, etal. Influence of
ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements on microtensile
bond strength to a glass ceramic. JProsthet Dent 2006;96:4127.
13. SouzaRO, CastilhoAA, FernandesVV, BottinoMA, ValandroLF.
Durability of microtensile bond to nonetched and etched feldspar
92 Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 4 / Issue - 3 / Sep-Dec 2016
ceramic: Selfadhesive resin cements vs conventional resin.
JAdhes Dent 2011;13:15562.
14. PoitevinA, De MunckJ, Van LanduytK, CoutinhoE, PeumansM,
LambrechtsP, etal. Influence of three specimen fixation modes
on the microtensile bond strength of adhesives to dentin. Dent
Mater J 2007;26:6949.
15. DArcangeloC, De AngelisF, DAmarioM, ZazzeroniS,
Ciampoli C, Caputi S. The influence of luting systems on the
microtensile bond strength of dentin to indirect resinbased
composite and ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34:32836.
16. SuyamaY, de MunckJ, CardosoMV, YamadaT, Van MeerbeekB.
Bond durability of selfadhesive composite cements to dentine.
JDent 2013;41:90817.
17. YoshidaY, NagakaneK, FukudaR, NakayamaY, OkazakiM,
ShintaniH, etal. Comparative study on adhesive performance
of functional monomers. JDent Res 2004;83:4548.
18. PeutzfeldtA, SahafiA, FluryS. Bonding of restorative materials
to dentin with various luting agents. Oper Dent 2011;36:26673.
19. De MunckJ, Van LanduytK, PeumansM, PoitevinA, LambrechtsP,
BraemM, etal. Acritical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth
tissue: Methods and results. JDent Res 2005;84:11832.