Comparison of Adhesion Performance of a Self-curing and a Light-curing Universal Adhesive to Various Dental Substrates and CAD/CAM Materials.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To compare the adhesion of a self-curing (Tokuyama Universal Bond, TUB) and a light-curing (Scotchbond Universal, SBU) universal adhesive to CAD/CAM materials, enamel, and dentin. This study also assessed differences in enamel adhesion between self-etch vs selective etching modes, as well as immediate and long-term adhesion to dentin for both adhesives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Shear bond strength (SBS) testing was used to assess adhesion to enamel, dentin, Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Enamic (VE), IPS e.max CAD (LD), IPS e.max ZirCAD (3Y-Zir), and Lava Esthetic (5Y-Zir) (n = 10). Moreover, bonding to enamel in self-etch and selective etching modes (n = 10) as well as immediate and aged resin-dentin bond strength (24 h after bonding, after 100,000 thermal cycles [TC] and long-term storage) was evaluated using the microtensile bond-strength test (n = 30). Failure mode was also determined for the bonding to dentin. Statistical analyses consisted of one-way and two-way ANOVA with appropriate post-hoc Tukey-Kramer or two-sample t-tests, as well as the chi-squared or Fisher's exact test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: TUB and SBU universal adhesives presented similar bonding to LU, VE, 3Y-Zir, and 5Y-Zir. However, SBS for TUB was superior to SBU when bonding to lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD). SBU showed better adhesion to dentin and enamel when used in the self-etch mode, while TUB promoted strong bond strength to enamel in the selective etching mode. TUB after TC was the only aging condition that yielded a significant reduction in resin-dentin bond strength. CONCLUSION: In-vitro adhesion performance of the self-curing and light-curing universal adhesives varies depending on the dental substrate or CAD/CAM restorative material used for bonding.