Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2011; 05(04): 373-379
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698908
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of Provisional Cements on Shear Bond Strength of Porcelain Laminate Veneers

Subutay Han Altintas
a   Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Trabzon, Turkey.
,
Onjen Tak
b   University of Kocaeli, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Kocaeli, Turkey.
,
Asli Secilmis
c   University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Gaziantep, Turkey.
,
Aslihan Usumez
d   University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Gaziantep, Turkey.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 October 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of three provisional cements and two cleaning techniques on the final bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers. Methods: The occlusal third of the crowns of forty molar teeth were sectioned and embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin. Dentin surfaces were polished and specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n=10). Provisional restorations were fabricated and two provisional restorations were cemented onto each tooth. Restorations were fixed with one of three different provisional cements: eugenol-free provisional cement (Cavex), calcium hydroxide (Dycal), and light-cured provisional cement (Tempond Clear). Provisional restorations were removed with either a dental explorer and air-water spray, or a cleaning bur (Opticlean). In the control group, provisional restorations were not used on the surfaces of specimens. IPS Empress 2 ceramic discs were luted with a dual-cured resin cement (Panavia F). Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD and Dunnett tests. Surfaces were examined by scanning electronic microscopy. Results: Significant differences were found between the control group and both the light-cured provisional cement groups and the eugenol-free provisional cement-cleaning bur group (P<.05). Groups that had received light-cured provisional cement showed the lowest bond strength values. Conclusions: Selection of the provisional cement is an important factor in the ultimate bond strength of the final restoration. Calcium hydroxide provisional cement and cleaning with a dental explorer are advisable. (Eur J Dent 2011;5:373-379)

Key words:

Provisional cement - Porcelain laminate veneer - Surface cleaning techniques
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 McLean JW. Ceramics in clinical dentistry. Br Dent J 1988;164:187-194.
  • 2 Hansen EK, Asmussen E. Influence of temporary filling materials on effect of dentin-bonding agents. Scand J Dent Res 1987;95:516-520.
  • 3 Grasso CA, Caluori DM, Goldstein GR, Hittelman E. In vivo evaluation of three cleaning techniques for prepared abutment teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:437-441.
  • 4 Dumfahrt H, Göbel G. Bonding porcelain laminate veneer provisional restorations: An experimental study. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:281-285.
  • 5 Fonseca RB, Martins LRM, Quagliatto PS, Soares CJ. Influence of provisional cements on ultimate bond strength of indirect composite restorations to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:225-230.
  • 6 Bachmann M, Paul SJ, Lüthy H, Schärer P. Effect of cleaning dentine with soap and pumice on shear bond strength of dentine-bonding agents. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:433-438.
  • 7 Button GL, Moon PC, Barnes RF, Gunsolley JC. Effect of preparation cleaning procedures on crown retention. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:145-148.
  • 8 Sarac D, Sarac YS, Kulunk S, Kulunk T. Effect of the dentin cleaning techniques on dentin wetting and on the bond strength of a resin luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:363-369
  • 9 Terata R. Characterization of enamel and dentin surfaces after removal of temporary cement-study on removal of temporary cement. Dent Mater J 1993;12:18-28.
  • 10 Kanakuri K, Kawamoto Y, Matsumura H. Influence of temporary cement remnant and surface cleaning method on bond strength to dentin of a composite luting system. J Oral Sci 2005;47:9-13.
  • 11 Finger WJ, Balkenhol M. Rewetting strategies for bonding to dry dentin with an acetone-based adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:51-56.
  • 12 Nakaoki Y, Nikaido T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Effect of residual water on dentin bond strength and hybridization of a one-bottle adhesive system. Oper Dent 2002;27:563-568.
  • 13 Pereira GD, Paulillo LA, De Goes MF, Dias CT. How wet should dentin be? Comparison of methods to remove excess water during moist bonding. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:257-
  • 264 14. Castelnuovo J, Tjan AHL, Phillips K, Nicholls JI, Kois JC. Fracture load and mode of failure of ceramic veneers with different preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:171-180.
  • 15 Cagidiaco MC, Ferrari M, Garberoglio R, Davidson CL. Dentin contamination protection after mechanical preparation for veneering. Am J Dent 1996;9:57-60.
  • 16 Magne P, Kim TH, Cascione D, Donovan TE. Immediate dentin sealing improves bond strength of indirect restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:511-519.
  • 17 Paul SJ, Schärer P. Intrapulpal pressure and thermal cycling: Effect on shear bond strength of eleven modern dentin bonding agents. J Esthet Dent 1993;4:179-185.