Luting of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: direct composite versus dual-cure luting cement

Biomed Mater Eng. 2015;25(3):279-88. doi: 10.3233/BME-151274.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate bonding effectiveness in direct restorations. A two-step self-etch adhesive and a light-cure resin composite was compared with luting with a conventional dual-cure resin cement and a two-step etch and rinse adhesive. Class-I box-type cavities were prepared. Identical ceramic inlays were designed and fabricated with a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) device. The inlays were seated with Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical) or ExciTE F DSC/Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent), each by two operators (five teeth per group). The inlays were stored in water for one week at 37°C, whereafter micro-tensile bond strength testing was conducted. The micro-tensile bond strength of the direct composite was significantly higher than that from conventional luting, and was independent of the operator (P<0.0001). Pre-testing failures were only observed with the conventional method. High-power light-curing of a direct composite may be a viable alternative to luting lithium disilicate glass-ceramic CAD/CAM restorations.

Keywords: Micro-tensile bond strength; ceramic inlay; computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM); luting cement; self-etch.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Adhesiveness
  • Ceramics / chemistry*
  • Computer-Aided Design*
  • Dental Cements / chemical synthesis*
  • Dental Cements / chemistry*
  • Dental Prosthesis Design
  • Dental Stress Analysis
  • Equipment Failure Analysis
  • Hardness
  • Humans
  • In Vitro Techniques
  • Inlays / instrumentation*
  • Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives / methods
  • Materials Testing
  • Molar / chemistry*
  • Molar / surgery
  • Stress, Mechanical
  • Tensile Strength

Substances

  • Dental Cements