Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes

Statement of the problem The effectiveness of bond strength using dual-polymerizing cementing systems ([DCSs] defined as the combination of dual-polymerizing bonding agents and resin cements) used with indirect restorations has not been evaluated when used solely with the autopolymerizing mode. Purpose This study evaluated the in vitro microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of fourth- and fifth-generation DCSs with indirect composite restorations either light polymerized or autopolymerized. Material and methods Occlusal dentin surfaces of 48 human third molars were exposed and flattened. Teeth were assigned to 8 groups (n = 6) according to the DCS and polymerizing modes: All-Bond2/Duolink (AB2), Optibond/Nexus2 (OPT), Bond1/Lute-it (B1), and Optibond Solo Dual Cure/Nexus2 (SOLO). Bonding agents were applied to dentin surfaces and left in the unpolymerized state. Resin cements were applied to prepolymerized resin discs (2 mm thick/Z250), which were subsequently bonded to the dentin surfaces. The restored teeth were light polymerized according to manufacturers' instructions (PP/XL 3000) or allowed to autopolymerize (AP). Restored teeth were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and were both mesio-distally and bucco-lingually sectioned to obtain multiple bonded beams (1.2 mm2 of cross-sectional area). Each specimen was tested in tension at a crosshead speed of 0.6 mm/min until failure. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α = .05). Failure patterns of tested specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Results The mean (SD) MTBS values (MPa) were: AB2/PP: 36.9 (6.5); AB2/AP: 32.7 (7.3); B1/PP: 38.2 (7.0); B1/AP: 13.0 (4.2); SOLO/PP: 33.2 (7.2); SOLO/AP: 23.4 (3.4); OPT/PP: 30.8 (7.5); OPT/AP: 13.1 (5.8). The AP groups showed significantly lower MTBS than the PP groups ( P