Effect of film thickness of resin cement on bonding efficiency in indirect composite restoration.
10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.2.069
- Author:
Sang Hyuck LEE
1
;
Gi Woon CHOI
;
Kyung Kyu CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. choikkyu@khu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Resin cement;
Film thickness;
Indirect composite restoration;
Bonding efficiency
- MeSH:
Adhesives;
Polymerization;
Polymers;
Resin Cements
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
2010;35(2):69-79
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of film thickness of various resin cements on bonding efficiency in indirect composite restoration by measurement of microtensile bond strength, polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and modulus, fractographic FE-SEM analysis. Experimental groups were divided according to film thickness (< 50 microm-control, 50 microm-T50, 100 microm-T100, 150 microm-T150) using composite-based resin cements (Variolink II, Duo-Link) and adhesive-based resin cements (Panavia F, Rely X Unicem). The data was analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan's multiple comparison test (p < 0.05). The results were as follows; 1. Variolink II showed higher microtensile bond strength than that of adhesive-based resin cements in all film thickness (p < 0.05) but Duo-Link did not show significant difference except control group (p < 0.05). 2. Microtensile bond strength of composite-based resin cements were decreased significantly according to increasing film thickness (p < 0.05) but adhesive-based resin cements did not show significant difference among film thickness (p > 0.05). 3. Panavia F showed significantly lower polymerization shrinkage than other resin cements (p < 0.05). 4. Composite-based resin cements showed significantly higher flexural strength and modulus than adhesive-based resin cements (p < 0.05). 5. FE-SEM examination showed uniform adhesive layer and well developed resin tags in composite-based resin cements but unclear adhesive layer and poorly developed resin tags in adhesive-based resin cements. In debonded surface examination, composite-based resin cements showed mixed failures but adhesive-based resin cements showed adhesive failures.
