Bond Strength of Two Resin Cements with Leucite-reinforced Ceramic Using Different Bonding Agents.

Aim: To compare the bond strength of two resin cements to leucite-reinforced ceramics using three different boding agents and evaluate the compatibility of bonding agents.

Materials and methods: Twenty extracted sound human molars were sectioned horizontally 2-3 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). CAD/CAM ceramic blocks for inLab were also sectioned to create 4 mm thick and bonded to the dentin. The adhesive groups assigned were divided into four adhesive groups: Group I: Variolink II dual-cure resin cement and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus adhesive, group II: Multilink Automix dual-cure resin cement and Multilink primers, group III: Multilink Automix and Clearfil SE bond 2 (CSE2) adhesive, group IV: Multilink Automix and CSE2 with light curing after adhesive application. Five specimens of each group were sectioned perpendicular to obtain six microsticks of 1 × 1 mm width from each sample. Microtensile bond strength data were expressed in MPa. Fracture modes (FrMs) analyzed for the surfaces were divided into six patterns. Microtensile bond strength data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α = 0.05). T-test was performed at the 5% significance level to analyze groups III and IV with and without light curing.

Results: Group I showed the highest μTBS average of 13.67 MPa, group IV showed 12.26 MPa, group III showed 12.15 MPa, and group II showed the lowest average of 10.84 MPa. No significant differences were found between the bonding agents. However, the six types of failure modes, although all observed, were characterized by the adhesive system: Type I: adhesive failure of laminated dentin and ceramic; type II: adhesive failure of laminated ceramic; type III: adhesive failure of laminated dentin; type IV: cohesive failure of luting agent; type V: cohesive failure of dentin, and type VI: mixed failure of adhesion and cohesion. As a result, the FrM most commonly observed was the adhesive failure at the luting cement-ceramic block interface.

Conclusion: The combination of resin cements and bonding agents did not significantly affect the bond strength of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations and dentin.

Clinical significance: Several universal bonding agents are currently available for direct and indirect bonding, and using the same bonding agent for direct and indirect restorations could simplify inventory and benefit routine clinical practice. How to cite this article: Aida N, Koi K, Amaya-Pajares SP, et al. Bond Strength of Two Resin Cements with Leucite-reinforced Ceramic Using Different Bonding Agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(11):859-863.