Effect of provisional restorations on dentin bond strengths of resin cements

William P. Kelsey, Mark A. Latta, Richard J. Blankenau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the shear bond strengths (SBS) when indirect resin composite cylinders were bonded to adhesive lined and unlined dentin following the placement of eugenol-containing or eugenol-free provisional restorations. Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty human molar teeth stored in formalin since extraction were prepared to expose a flat dentin surface by grinding with a 600-grit disc. Cylinders of Triad indirect resin composite were then bonded to these dentin surfaces. The teeth were assigned to the following 10 groups (n = 15): (1) resin cement control (Enforce); (2) polyacid-modified resin composite (PMRC) cement control (Dyract Cem); (3) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration (IRM) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (4) adhesive liner (Prime & Bond) followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration (temp Bond NE) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (5) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (6) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (7) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (8) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (9) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; and (10) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement. After storage, bond strengths were measured by shearing with an Instron testing machine. Results: Mean SBS (MPa) were: resin cement control, 19.9 ± 2.5; PMRC cement control, 14.0 ± 3.5; liner-eugenol-resin cement, 15.5 ± 3.0; liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 19.4 ± 6.8; no liner-eugenol-resin cement, 18.5 ± 4.5; no liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 20.5 ± 4.5; liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 10.2 ± 3.1; liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 11.6 ± 6.0; no liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 14.3 ± 5.3; and no liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 13.1 ± 5.5. A three-way ANOVA (resin liner, provisional restoration and luting cement) demonstrated that significant differences were attributable to the presence or absence of the liner and to the type of cement that was used. Fisher's post hoc test indicated that the mean SBS of the resin cement control group was significantly greater than that of the PMRC cement control group (P = 0.001). This test also pointed out that only when an experimental group involved the placement of a eugenol-containing provisional restoration onto an adhesive lined surface did the mean SBS be- come significantly less than the respective control group.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)67-70
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Dentistry
Volume11
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Resin Cements
Dentin
Eugenol
Adhesives
Shear Strength
Control Groups
Tooth

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effect of provisional restorations on dentin bond strengths of resin cements. / Kelsey, William P.; Latta, Mark A.; Blankenau, Richard J.

In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1998, p. 67-70.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kelsey, William P. ; Latta, Mark A. ; Blankenau, Richard J. / Effect of provisional restorations on dentin bond strengths of resin cements. In: American Journal of Dentistry. 1998 ; Vol. 11, No. 2. pp. 67-70.
@article{166117314bd3420fac8267af8d3be342,
title = "Effect of provisional restorations on dentin bond strengths of resin cements",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate the shear bond strengths (SBS) when indirect resin composite cylinders were bonded to adhesive lined and unlined dentin following the placement of eugenol-containing or eugenol-free provisional restorations. Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty human molar teeth stored in formalin since extraction were prepared to expose a flat dentin surface by grinding with a 600-grit disc. Cylinders of Triad indirect resin composite were then bonded to these dentin surfaces. The teeth were assigned to the following 10 groups (n = 15): (1) resin cement control (Enforce); (2) polyacid-modified resin composite (PMRC) cement control (Dyract Cem); (3) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration (IRM) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (4) adhesive liner (Prime & Bond) followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration (temp Bond NE) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (5) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (6) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (7) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (8) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (9) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; and (10) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement. After storage, bond strengths were measured by shearing with an Instron testing machine. Results: Mean SBS (MPa) were: resin cement control, 19.9 ± 2.5; PMRC cement control, 14.0 ± 3.5; liner-eugenol-resin cement, 15.5 ± 3.0; liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 19.4 ± 6.8; no liner-eugenol-resin cement, 18.5 ± 4.5; no liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 20.5 ± 4.5; liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 10.2 ± 3.1; liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 11.6 ± 6.0; no liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 14.3 ± 5.3; and no liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 13.1 ± 5.5. A three-way ANOVA (resin liner, provisional restoration and luting cement) demonstrated that significant differences were attributable to the presence or absence of the liner and to the type of cement that was used. Fisher's post hoc test indicated that the mean SBS of the resin cement control group was significantly greater than that of the PMRC cement control group (P = 0.001). This test also pointed out that only when an experimental group involved the placement of a eugenol-containing provisional restoration onto an adhesive lined surface did the mean SBS be- come significantly less than the respective control group.",
author = "Kelsey, {William P.} and Latta, {Mark A.} and Blankenau, {Richard J.}",
year = "1998",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "67--70",
journal = "American Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0894-8275",
publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of provisional restorations on dentin bond strengths of resin cements

AU - Kelsey, William P.

AU - Latta, Mark A.

AU - Blankenau, Richard J.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Purpose: To investigate the shear bond strengths (SBS) when indirect resin composite cylinders were bonded to adhesive lined and unlined dentin following the placement of eugenol-containing or eugenol-free provisional restorations. Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty human molar teeth stored in formalin since extraction were prepared to expose a flat dentin surface by grinding with a 600-grit disc. Cylinders of Triad indirect resin composite were then bonded to these dentin surfaces. The teeth were assigned to the following 10 groups (n = 15): (1) resin cement control (Enforce); (2) polyacid-modified resin composite (PMRC) cement control (Dyract Cem); (3) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration (IRM) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (4) adhesive liner (Prime & Bond) followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration (temp Bond NE) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (5) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (6) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (7) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (8) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (9) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; and (10) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement. After storage, bond strengths were measured by shearing with an Instron testing machine. Results: Mean SBS (MPa) were: resin cement control, 19.9 ± 2.5; PMRC cement control, 14.0 ± 3.5; liner-eugenol-resin cement, 15.5 ± 3.0; liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 19.4 ± 6.8; no liner-eugenol-resin cement, 18.5 ± 4.5; no liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 20.5 ± 4.5; liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 10.2 ± 3.1; liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 11.6 ± 6.0; no liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 14.3 ± 5.3; and no liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 13.1 ± 5.5. A three-way ANOVA (resin liner, provisional restoration and luting cement) demonstrated that significant differences were attributable to the presence or absence of the liner and to the type of cement that was used. Fisher's post hoc test indicated that the mean SBS of the resin cement control group was significantly greater than that of the PMRC cement control group (P = 0.001). This test also pointed out that only when an experimental group involved the placement of a eugenol-containing provisional restoration onto an adhesive lined surface did the mean SBS be- come significantly less than the respective control group.

AB - Purpose: To investigate the shear bond strengths (SBS) when indirect resin composite cylinders were bonded to adhesive lined and unlined dentin following the placement of eugenol-containing or eugenol-free provisional restorations. Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty human molar teeth stored in formalin since extraction were prepared to expose a flat dentin surface by grinding with a 600-grit disc. Cylinders of Triad indirect resin composite were then bonded to these dentin surfaces. The teeth were assigned to the following 10 groups (n = 15): (1) resin cement control (Enforce); (2) polyacid-modified resin composite (PMRC) cement control (Dyract Cem); (3) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration (IRM) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (4) adhesive liner (Prime & Bond) followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration (temp Bond NE) followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (5) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (6) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the resin cement; (7) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (8) adhesive liner followed by a eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; (9) eugenol-containing provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement; and (10) eugenol-free provisional restoration followed by adhesive bonding with the PMRC cement. After storage, bond strengths were measured by shearing with an Instron testing machine. Results: Mean SBS (MPa) were: resin cement control, 19.9 ± 2.5; PMRC cement control, 14.0 ± 3.5; liner-eugenol-resin cement, 15.5 ± 3.0; liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 19.4 ± 6.8; no liner-eugenol-resin cement, 18.5 ± 4.5; no liner-noneugenol-resin cement, 20.5 ± 4.5; liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 10.2 ± 3.1; liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 11.6 ± 6.0; no liner-eugenol-PMRC cement, 14.3 ± 5.3; and no liner-noneugenol-PMRC cement, 13.1 ± 5.5. A three-way ANOVA (resin liner, provisional restoration and luting cement) demonstrated that significant differences were attributable to the presence or absence of the liner and to the type of cement that was used. Fisher's post hoc test indicated that the mean SBS of the resin cement control group was significantly greater than that of the PMRC cement control group (P = 0.001). This test also pointed out that only when an experimental group involved the placement of a eugenol-containing provisional restoration onto an adhesive lined surface did the mean SBS be- come significantly less than the respective control group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0345137632&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0345137632&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0345137632

VL - 11

SP - 67

EP - 70

JO - American Journal of Dentistry

JF - American Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0894-8275

IS - 2

ER -