447 Bond Strength Comparisons of Six Cements to Premise Indirect Composite

Thursday, March 22, 2012: 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
Location: East Hall (Tampa Convention Center)
Presentation Type: Poster Session
C.J. ELLIOTT, G. FREY, and J. ONTIVEROS, Biomaterials, University of Texas - Houston/Health Science Center, Houston, TX

To compare the shear bond strength of various self-etch and dual cure resin cements to Premise facial and primary-dentin indirect composite. 


Sixty discs of Premise indirect composite (SDS/Kerr), d=5 mm, were fabricated and mounted in acrylic; thirty facial dentin composite and thirty primary dentin composite. The discs were polished using 320 grit paper, followed by Rocatec micro-abrasion and silane application. Cement cylinders, d=2.5, were bonded to an equal number of primary dentin and facial dentin composite discs according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The cements were Maxcem Elite (Kerr), Rely X Unicem Applicaps (3M ESPE), Clearfil Esthetic Cement with DC bond (Kuraray America), Rely X ARC with Single Bond (3M ESPE), Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray America), and Nexus 3 (Kerr). Immediately after bonding, the specimens were immersed in water at 37°C for 24 hours. They were debonded using an Instron universal testing machine and shear bond strengths were calculated in Megapascals (MPa). The data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test at 0.05 level of significance.


Means and standard deviations of shear bond strength (MPa) are listed below:

Cement                  Premise Primary-Dentin      Premise Facial-Dentin

•Maxcem Elite            36.9 (10.9)                       15 (7.7)
•Unicem                    23.3 (8.5)                        25.3 (9.6)
•Clearfil Esthetic         15.6 (4.6)                         28 (23.2)
•Rely X ARC               33.5 (12.4)                      17.3 (6.9)
•Panavia F                 17.9 (5.1)                        28.8 (15.4)
•Nexus 3                    26 (3.9)                          25.3 (13.4)

 There was no significant difference in shear bond strengths among the six cements (p=0.95), nor between Premise facial and primary-dentin bond strengths (p=0.40).


The use of Premise facial or primary-dentin indirect composite does not result in significantly different resin to cement shear bond strengths, nor is there a significant difference between the six cements.

Keywords: Adhesion, Biomaterials, Cements, Composites and Dental materials
Presenting author's disclosure statement: Kerr, 3M ESPE, and Kuraray have donated materials to be used for this research project.