ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the color-match with extracted natural teeth of three single-shade universal composites, a group-shade universal composite, and a highly translucent-shade conventional composite. METHODS: Twenty extracted human teeth were divided into light- and dark-shade groups (n = 10, LSG and DSG). A preparation was restored with the 3 single-shade universal composites, OMNICHROMA (OMC), Admira Fusion x-tra U (AFU), and Essentia U (ESU); a highly translucent-shade conventional composite, Tetric EvoCeram T (TEC-T); and two shades of a group-shade universal composite-Filtek Universal Restorative (FUR A1 and A4). Composites were photopolymerized, polished, and stored in water for 24 h. The ΔE00 value between the unprepared and restored surfaces was obtained using a spectrophotometer. Composite placement and measurements were repeated three times per tooth. Color differences were statistically analyzed with the within-between-subjects t-test and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni adjustment (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between OMC and FUR (A1 and A4). AFU and ESU showed significantly higher ΔE00 values than OMC and TEC-T (p < 0.05). Single-shade composites exhibited significantly higher ΔE00 values in the DSG than in the LSG except ESU (p < 0.05). None of the composites satisfied the criteria for an acceptable match (ΔE00 >1.8). CONCLUSION: OMC showed the same color matching ability as a group-shade universal composite. A highly translucent-shade conventional composite and OMC exhibited better color matching ability than other single-shade composites. Overall, single-shade universal composites performed better in lighter-shaded teeth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Single-shade universal composites have the potential to reduce chair time by eliminating shade selection in cavities with lighter-shade teeth. Highly translucent incisal conventional composites also may be used if the appropriate shade of composite is not available.
ABSTRACT
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.