This study was partially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP (Grants: no. 2009/ 08420–3; no. 2009–08992-7) and Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento – CNPQ (Grant: no. 133077/2009–8).
Knoop Hardness and Effectiveness of Dual-Cured Luting Systems and Flowable Resin to Bond Leucite-Reinforced Ceramic to Enamel
Version of Record online: 31 AUG 2012
© 2012 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Journal of Prosthodontics
Volume 22, Issue 1, pages 54–58, January 2013
How to Cite
Prieto, L. T., José Souza-Junior, E., Pimenta Araújo, C. T., Lima, A. F., dos Santos Dias, C. T. and Maffei Sartini Paulillo, L. A. (2013), Knoop Hardness and Effectiveness of Dual-Cured Luting Systems and Flowable Resin to Bond Leucite-Reinforced Ceramic to Enamel. Journal of Prosthodontics, 22: 54–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00898.x
The authors deny any conflicts of interest.
- Issue online: 8 JAN 2013
- Version of Record online: 31 AUG 2012
- Accepted March 24, 2012
- Resin cement;
- Knoop microhardness;
- microshear bond strength
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop microhardness and microshear bond strength (MSBS) of dual-cured luting systems and flowable resin bonded to leucite-reinforced ceramics and enamel.
Materials and Methods: Eighty bovine incisors were randomly divided into four groups per test (microhardness and microshear; n = 10) according to the bonding procedure: Excite DSC/Variolink, Clearfil SE Bond/Panavia F, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus/RelyX ARC, and Adper Single Bond 2/Filtek Z350 Flow. For the KHN measurement, the cement was applied on the enamel surface and light-cured through a ceramic disk (5 mm diameter × 1.2 mm thick). Five indentations were performed in each specimen and measured at HMV-2. For the microshear test, two cylinders of a leucite-reinforced ceramic (1 mm diameter × 2 mm height) were bonded to the enamel substrate in accordance with the bonding procedures previously established. One cylinder was tested 24 hours after cementation, and the other was subjected to thermocycling (2000 cycles) and then submitted to an MSBS test. The data from the hardness and bond strength tests were subjected to one- and two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively, and to Tukey's test (α= 0.05).
Results: Scotchbond/RelyX ARC presented higher values of bond strength, while Single Bond/Z350 Flow showed lower values. The thermocycling promoted a reduction in the bond strength values for all groups. Panavia F presented higher values of KHN, and the flowable resin presented the lowest. RelyX ARC and Variolink presented intermediate values on hardness evaluation.
Conclusions: For ceramic cementation, dual-cured resin luting systems promoted more reliable bonding and microhardness values than the flowable resin.