Bond durability of self-adhesive composite cements to dentine

AbstractObjectives ally, the most easy-to-use composite cements are the so-called self-adhesive composite cements (SACʹs). Hardly any data is however today available on the long-term bonding effectiveness of such luting composites. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond durability of different composite cements used to lute feldspathic ceramic blocks onto dentine. s ACʹs (Clearfil SA Cement, Kuraray; G-CEM, GC; SmartCem2, Dentsply; Unicem 3M ESPE), one ‘self-etch’ (Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray) and one ‘etch-and-rinse’ (Variolink ll, Ivoclar-Vivadent) multi-step composite cement were used to lute feldspathic ceramic blocks (Vita Mark II, Vita) onto dentine surfaces. Teeth were distributed randomly in 24 experimental groups according to two different surface-preparation techniques (‘SMEAR-COVERED’ versus ‘SMEAR-FREE’) and storage conditions (‘IMMEDIATE’ versus ‘AGED’). Failure patterns were evaluated with a stereomicroscope, and afterwards imaged using Feg-SEM. Two additional specimens were processed for cement-dentine interfacial analysis using TEM. s ar mixed effects statistical model revealed significant differences for the variables ‘composite cement’, ‘surface preparation’ and ‘ageing’. All self-adhesive composite cements, except Unicem (3M ESPE), did bond less favourably to fractured dentine. TEM revealed an ultra-structurally different interaction of the composite cements with ‘SMEAR-COVERED’ and ‘SMEAR-FREE’ dentine. sion Cʹs suffered most when luted to ‘SMEAR-FREE’ (fractured) dentine, fortunately of no clinical relevance and most likely due to enhanced water sorption through the open tubules. When luted to ‘SMEAR-COVERED’ dentine, all SACs appeared equally effective and durable as the ‘etch-and-rinse’ and ‘self-etch’ multi-step composite cements. Solely the SAC SmartCem2 (Dentsply) appeared clearly less favourable and consistent.