Correlative analysis of cement–dentin interfaces using an interfacial fracture toughness and micro-tensile bond strength approach. Issue 12 (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Souza, Evelise M.; De Munck, Jan; Pongprueksa, Pong; Van Ende, Annelies; Van Meerbeek, Bart
• Is Part Of: Dental materials. Volume 32:Issue 12(2016)
• Page Start: 1575
• Page End: 1585
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Adhesive luting -- Composite cement -- Bonding -- Fracture toughness -- Micro-tensile bond strength -- Dentin; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dental materials -- Periodicals; 617.695
• DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.031
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0109-5641

Abstract

Graphical abstract: Highlights: Bond strength of composite cements to dentin was evaluated both by iFT and μTBS. μTBS appeared more discriminative than iFT for bonding effectiveness of cements to dentin. Correlation between iFT and μTBS was moderate and not significant. The etch-and-rinse and 'universal' self-etch composite cements performed best in both tests. Abstract: Objectives: To determine the interfacial fracture toughness (iFT) and micro-tensile strength (μTBS) of composite cements bonded to dentin. Methods: Fifty feldspar ceramic blocks (Vita Mark II, Vita Zahnfabrik) were luted onto dentin using two self-adhesive (G-CEM LinkAce, GC; SpeedCEM, Ivoclar Vivadent), two self-etch (Multilink Primer & Multilink Automix, Ivoclar Vivadent; Scotchbond Universal & RelyX Ultimate, 3 M ESPE), and one etch-and-rinse (Excite F DSC & Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) composite cement (n = 10). After 48 h in 100% relative humidity at 37 °C, one half of each tooth was sectioned in sticks with a chevron notch at the cement–dentin interface and tested in a 4-point bending test setup (iFT). The remaining half of the tooth was sectioned in micro-specimens and stressed in tension until failure (μTBS). The mode of failure was determined with a stereomicroscope at 50× magnification. Data were submitted to Weibull analysis and Pearson's correlation ( α = 0.05). Results: At 10% probability of failure, no significant differences could be found using iFT, while the etch-and-rinse composite cement Variolink II presented a significantly higher μTBS at this level. At 63.2% probability of failure, the self-adhesive composite cement G-CEM LinkAce revealed a significantly lower μTBS and iFT, and the self-etch cement Multilink Automix also revealed a significantly lower μTBS than all other cements. The correlation found between iFT and μTBS was moderate and not significant (r 2 = 0.618, p = 0.11). Significance: Overall, the etch-and-rinse and 'universal' self-etch composite cements performed best. The micro-tensile bond strength and interfacial fracture toughness tests did not correlate well.