RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Bond strength of adhesive luting systems

to human dentin and their durability
Marius Maaßen,a Sebastian Wille, Dr,b and Matthias Kern, Prof Dr med dent Habilc

Autopolymerizing and dual- ABSTRACT

polymerizing resin systems
Statement of problem. The durability of adhesive bonding systems to dentin is of importance for
consist of a primer or an ad- restoration longevity; therefore, new adhesive systems should be tested in vitro with long-term
hesive for conditioning the artificial aging before clinical application.
dental hard tissues and an
Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the bonding durability of 3
adhesive resin to bond the
dual-polymerizing resins and 1 autopolymerizing resin to human dentin with their specific
restoration to the tooth. self-etching primers or adhesives.
Dental adhesives can be
divided into adhesives with a Material and methods. Acrylic resin tubes filled with composite resin were bonded to human
dentin disks using either an autopolymerizing resin system (Panavia 21) or dual-polymerizing
separate etching step (etch and
resin systems (Panavia V5, RelyX Ultimate, and Variolink Esthetic DC) together with the
rinse) and self-etching primers system-specific primer or adhesive. Tensile bond strength was tested after 3 days of water
or adhesives (self-etch). Self- storage or after 150 days of water storage with 37 500 thermocycles (5
C to 55
C). The failure
etching primers or adhesives mode was evaluated by using a light microscope. In addition, representative specimens were
have become popular since examined by using a scanning electron microscope.
they were developed in the Results. After 3 days, the median tensile bond strengths ranged from 18.8 to 29.1 MPa. After
mid-1990s.1 because of their artificial aging for 150 days, the median tensile bond strengths ranged from 14.7 to 25.6 MPa.
simplified and less time- The dual-polymerizing resins showed significantly higher bond strength than the
consuming clinical applica- autopolymerizing resin (P.05). Artificial aging with thermocycling had no statistically significant
tion.2,3 They do not require a influence on tensile bond strength for the adhesive resin systems tested (P>.05). The failure
separate etching step with mode was mainly adhesive for the autopolymerizing resin, whereas it was mainly cohesive for
4-7 the dual-polymerizing resins.
rinsing as they contain
acidic monomers that condi- Conclusions. The 3 tested dual-polymerization resin systems provided durable bond strengths to
tion and prime the dentin and dentin which were higher than those of the autopolymerizing resin. (J Prosthet Dent 2019;-:---)
enamel simultaneously.
Monomers infiltrate the dentin and combine with the unlikely.11 Self-etching primers combine the etching step
collagen and the hydroxyapatite to produce a hybrid with priming and bonding4 in a single application pro-
8,9 10
layer. Nakabayashi et al demonstrated the impor- cedure.1,12,13 These systems and their simplified appli-
tance of the hybrid layer for adhesive bonding. cation have not been universally accepted as they allow
Self-etching primers or adhesives are less technique- dentinal fluids to cross polymerized resins.14 However,
sensitive than total phosphoric acid etching systems as they have been reported to be reliable under different
excessive etching, which might result in microleakage, is clinical conditions.15

This study was financially supported by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Osaka, Japan.
a
Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.
b
Head of Dental Materials Science, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.
c
Director of the Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 1

2 Volume
Clinical Implications
Self-etching primers and adhesives with their
respective dual-polymerizing resins show promising
bonding durability to dentin in comparison with
autopolymerizing resins. Artificial aging with
thermocycling had no statistically significant
influence on tensile bond strength for the adhesive
resin systems tested. However, clinical studies are
recommended.
After tooth preparation, a smear layer consisting of
dentin debris remains on the tooth surface.16 A signifi-
cant difference between etch-and-rinse systems and self-
etching systems is the handling of this smear layer. With
self-etching primers or adhesives, the smear layer re-
mains on the tooth surface and is incorporated, while,
with etch-and-rinse systems, it is removed.1,17,18
Autopolymerizing and dual-polymerizing resins are
used to cement dental restorations, including inlays,
onlays, crowns, fixed partial dentures, posts and metal
cores, implant abutments, and superstructures. They are
compatible with many materials (metal, glass-ceramic,
lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, zirconia ceramic, and
composite resin restorations). Autopolymerizing resins
are polymerized chemically by an amine or peroxide
system. Dual-polymerizing resins offer the beneficial
option of additional light-activated polymerization by
using photoinitiators such as the camphorquinone and
amine systems.4,18-20
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate
the bonding capacity of 3 dual-polymerizing and 1
autopolymerizing resin to human dentin when used with
their specific self-etching primer or adhesive systems.
Additionally, the bonding durability after artificial aging
by long-term water storage and thermocycling was
evaluated.21,22 The null hypotheses were that the tensile
bond strengths of the adhesive systems to human dentin
would be similar and that thermocycling would not affect
the durability of the bond.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Sixty-four caries-free extracted human third molars
were cleaned of periodontal tissue and stored in a 0.1%
thymol solution at 4
C. The teeth were processed
within 2 weeks after extraction. Dentin disks with a
thickness of 3.5 mm were prepared by cutting buccal or
lingual dentin perpendicular to the tooth axis by using
a slow-speed diamond saw (IsoMet; Buehler) under
water cooling. The specimens were embedded in an
autopolymerizing resin (Luxatemp; DMG-Dental) in a
brass ring. The specimens were wet polished with 600-
grit SiC paper, stored in distilled water at 4
C,15,23-25
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
- Issue -
cleaned with a pumice-water mixture by using a
brush with a handpiece for 10 seconds, and sprayed
with water-air from a dental unit. The dentin disks
were distributed into 4 groups of 16 disks with respect
to the adhesive system used.
Acrylic resin tubes with an inner diameter of 3.3 mm
and a height of 15.0 mm were filled with autopolymerizing
resin (CLEARFIL CORE New Bond; Kuraray Noritake
Dental Inc). An autopolymerizing resin (Panavia 21;
Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc) with a self-etching and
autopolymerizing primer (ED primer; Kuraray Noritake
Dental Inc) was used as the control. The dual-
polymerizing Panavia V5 with Tooth Primer (Kuraray
Noritake Dental Inc), dual-polymerizing RelyX Ultimate
with Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE), and dual-
polymerizing Variolink Esthetic DC with Adhese Univer-
sal (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) served as test groups for recently
introduced self-etching primers or adhesives in combi-
nation with dual-polymerizing adhesive resins. The tested
composite resins and their corresponding composition
and group codes are summarized in Table 1.
Seven minutes after the start of mixing the composite
resin, the tubes were bonded with their respective adhesive
resins to the dentin specimens by using an alignment
apparatus with a load of 7.4 N. This bonding method has
been previously described in detail.26 Excess resin was
removed from the bonded margin by using cotton pellets,
and a gel was then applied to prevent an oxygen-inhibited
layer (Oxyguard II; Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, for Pana-
via 21 and Panavia V5, and Liquid Strip; Ivoclar Vivadent
AG, for RelyX Ultimate and Variolink Esthetic DC).
All specimens were then placed in an incubator at 37


C for 10 minutes. For polymerization of the dual-
polymerizing systems, an LED polymerization lamp
(Radii-cal; SDI Limited) with a light power of 1200 mW/
cm2 at a wavelength of 440 nm to 480 nm was used.
Each bonding group was then randomly divided into
2 subgroups (n=8) with respect to the storing conditions
by drawing them blindly out of the group container
(similar to drawing lottery tickets). One subgroup was
stored in water at 37
C for 3 days with no thermocycling,
and the other was stored alternately in water at 37
C for
150 days with 37 500 thermocycles from 5
C to 55
C. A
cycle consisted of 2 temperature-change loads. The dwell
time in each bath was 30 seconds.27-29 After the different
storage conditions, the tensile bond strength was eval-
uated at a cross-head speed of 2 mm/min in a universal
testing machine (Zwick Z010/TN2A; ZwickRoell GmbH
& Co KG) by using a special test configuration, which
provided a moment-free axial force application. A collet
held the tube while an alignment jig allowed self-
centering of the specimen.26
Statistical software (IBM SPSS for Windows, v20.0;
IBM Corp) was used for the statistical analysis. The
Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data of some groups
Maaßen et al
- 2019 3

Table 1. List of bonding systems, manufacturer, and composition of cement and primer
Polymerization System Primer Adhesive
Mode (Group Code) Manufacturer Cement Composition Composition Composition
Autopolymerizing Panavia 21 Kuraray Base paste: Hydrophobic aromatic dimethacrylate, hydrophobic Liquid A: HEMA,
(P21) Noritake Dental aliphatic methacrylate, hydrophilic aliphatic dimethacrylate, MDP, 5-NMSA,
Inc silanated titanium oxide, silanated barium glass filler, catalysts, water, accelerators
accelerators, pigments Liquid B: 5-NMSA,
Catalyst paste: MDP, hydrophobic aromatic dimethacrylate, water, catalysts,
hydrophobic aliphatic methacrylate, silanated silica filler, colloidal accelerators
silica, catalysts
Dual-polymerizing Panavia V5 Kuraray Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, silanated barium glass filler, silanated Tooth primer:
(PV5) Noritake Dental fluoroaluminosilicate glass filler, colloidal silica, surface-treated HEMA, MDP,
Inc aluminum oxide filler, hydrophobic aromatic dimethacrylate, hydrophilic aliphatic
hydrophilic aliphatic dimethacrylate, CQ, initiators, accelerators, dimethacrylate,
pigments accelerators, water
Dual-polymerizing RelyX Ulitmate 3M Deutschland Base paste: glass powder surface modified with 2-propenoic acid, Scotchbond
(RXU) GmbH 2 methyl-, 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl esters and phenyltrimethoxy Universal: MDP,
silane, bulk material, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 1,10 -[1- dimethacrylate
(hydroxymethyl)-1,2-ethanediyl] ester, reaction products with 2- resins, HEMA, CQ,
hydroxy-1,3-propanediyl dimethacrylate and phosphorus oxide, filler, ethanol, water,
TEGDMA, silane-treated silica oxide glass chemicals (nonfibrous), initiators, silane
sodium persulfate, tert-butyl peroxy-3,5,5 trimethylhexanoate,
acetic acid, copper(2+) salt, monohydrate
Catalyst paste: glass powder, surface modified with 2-propenoic
acid, 2 methyl-, 3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl ester, bulk material,
substituted dimethacrylate, 2,4,6(1h,3h,5h)-pyrimidinetrione, 5-
phenyl-1-(phenylmethyl)-, calcium salt (2:1), 1,12-dodecane
dimethacrylate, silane-treated silicia, sodium P-toluenesulfinate,
p-2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, [(3-methoxypropyl) imino] di-2,1-
ethanediyl ester, calcium hydroxide, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,
2-[(2-hydroxyethyl) (3-methoxypropyl)amino]ethyl ester
Dual-polymerizing Variolink Ivoclar Vivadent Base paste: ytterbium trifluoride, UDMA, 1,10-decandiol Adhese Universal:
Esthetic DC AG dimethacrylate, acetyl-2-thiourea HEMA, Bis-GMA,
(VE) Catalyst paste: ytterbium trifluoride, UDMA, 1,10-decandiol ethanol, 1,10-
dimethacrylate, CHUP decandiol
dimethacrylate,
MDP, CQ,
dimethylaminoethyl
methacrylate

Bis-GMA, Bisphenol A diglycidylmethacrylate; CQ, dl-camphorquinone or campherquinone; CUHP, a,a-dimethylbenzyl hydroperoxide; HEMA, 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate;
MDP, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; 5-NMSA, N-methacryloyl-5-aminosalicylic acid; TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate.

were not normally distributed. Therefore, the data were
statistically evaluated with the Kruskal-Wallis test fol-
lowed by a pairwise Mann-Whitney comparison (a=.05),
and a Bonferroni-Holm correction for multiple compari-
sons was conducted.
The fractured interfaces of all specimens were examined
visually by using a light microscope (Wild Makroskop
M420; Leica) at ×30 magnification to calculate the fractured
interfaces of the debonded specimens and to determine
failure modes (adhesive, cohesive in dentin, or cohesive in
resin).26 In addition, representative specimens were air-
dried for 24 hours and examined under a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) operating with an acceleration voltage of
15 kV (Philips XL 30 CP; Philips) after sputtering a gold
alloy conductive layer of approximately 15 nm.27,28,30
RESULTS
The tensile bond strengths of all groups and their sta-
tistical analysis are presented in Table 2. The dual-
polymerizing resins showed statistically, significantly,
higher bond strengths than the control autopolymerizing
resin (P.05). Artificial aging with thermocycling had no
statistically significant influence on tensile bond strength
for the adhesive resins tested (P>.05).
The fracture modes of the 4 adhesive resin systems as
a percentage of the bonding area are summarized in
Figure 1. The failure mode was mainly adhesive for the
autopolymerizing resin, while it was mainly cohesive for
the dual-polymerizing resins. In addition, no cohesive
failures in the dentin substrate were found in the auto-
polymerizing resin group. The other groups showed a
limited number of cohesive failures in the dentin.
Representative SEM micrographs of the fracture in-
terfaces are shown in Figures 2, 3.
DISCUSSION
The bond strengths of the control autopolymerizing resin
(Panavia 21) (14.7 to 18.8 MPa) are similar to those of
previous studies that reported a bond strength of 13.8 to
17.1 MPa.31-33 However, the dual-polymerizing resins
with their self-etching primers or adhesives showed
significantly higher bond strengths (23.8 to 29.1 MPa),
consistent with the results of previous studies.19,24,34,35
Based on the results of other studies and within the limi-
tations of this study, the dual-polymerizing resins appear
to be better than the control autopolymerizing resin.
The null hypothesis that the adhesive systems do not
provide different tensile bond strengths to human dentin

Maaßen et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

4 Volume - Issue -

Table 2. Medians and means ±standard deviation of tensile bond strength (MPa) of all subgroups (n=8)
3d 150 d
Groups Adhesives Primer Median Mean ±SD Median Mean ±SD
P21 Panavia 21 ED Primer 18.8Ba 19.2 ±2.7 14.7Ba 15.4 ±2.5
PV5 Panavia V5 Tooth Primer 26.5Aa 27.6 ±5.0 23.8Aa 25.7 ±4.2
VE Variolink Esthetic Adhese Universal 27.6Aa 28.1 ±3.5 24.3Aa 23.7 ±2.5
RXU RelyX Ultimate Scotchbond Universal 29.1Aa 28.9 ±3.5 25.6Aa 25.5 ±2.7

SD, standard deviation. Statistically different means (P.05) indicated by different superscript uppercase letters within column (same kind of storage conditions). Same subscript lowercase
letters indicate no statistically significant difference within row (same primer or adhesive system).

100% 0 0 3
11 9
90% 17
26 23
25
80% 20
20
70% 39
Bonding Area (%)

60% 80 82 34
35
50%

40%
72 71
30% 63
50
20% 39 43

10% 20 18

0%
P21-3d P21-150d PV5-3d PV5-150d RXU-3d RXU-150d VE-3d VE-150d
Test Groups After 3 and 150 Days' Storage Time

Cohesive failure in resin Adhesive failure to dentin Cohesive failure in dentin

Figure 1. Graphical presentation of proportional prevalence of fracture modes of debonded dentin surfaces of all subgroups in percent.

was rejected as the bond strength of the autopolyme-
rizing resin was significantly lower than that of the dual-
polymerizing resins. The observed increased adhesive
failure mode of the autopolymerizing resin is consistent
with its lower bond strength compared with the dual-
polymerizing resins. In addition, the increasing number
of cohesive failures with increased tensile strength is
consistent with the observed failure types.
One reason for the different observed bond strength
could be the composition of primer and adhesive resin.
The properties of self-etching primers are determined by
components such as acidic monomers.6 These acidic
monomers have a hydrophilic group that demineralizes
and forms a chemical bond to calcium and hydroxyapa-
tite. In this study, different self-etching primers with
different compositions were tested. One commonality of
all primers is the use of the acidic monomer 10-
methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP)
and 2-2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA). However,
the auto- and dual-polymerizing resins have different
primers or adhesives with camphorquinone as a photo-
initiator to light-polymerize the primer. Tooth primer of the
Panavia V5 is not polymerized by light and therefore con-
tains no photoinitiator. Therefore, the presence of a pho-
toinitiator does not appear to affect bond strength
compared with the other dual-polymerizing primers.
Further differences exist between the exposure times of the
auto- and dual-polymerizing resin primers used. All
primers or adhesives of the dual-polymerizing resins
moisten the dentin for 20 seconds, while the manufacturer
of the primer of the autopolymerizing resin recommends a
reaction of 60 seconds with the dentin.
Adequate demineralization of the hard tissue requires
a sufficiently low pH value in the self-etching primer or
adhesive. The primer of the autopolymerizing resin in
this study had a pH value of 3.0, while the pH values of
the primers or adhesives of the dual-polymerizing resins
were between 2.0 (PV5) and 2.7 (VE and RXU). The pH
values of the primers correspond to the classification of
Van Meerbeek et al,21 mild (pHz2) and ultra-mild
(pH2.5). Mild self-etching primers partially remove
the smear layer, forming a thin hybrid layer. The dis-
solved hydroxyapatite can then chemically bond with
functional monomers.4,7 Ultra-mild self-etching primers

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Maaßen et al

- 2019 5

Figure 2. SEM pictures from P21 after 150 days with low magnification (A, ×500) and higher magnification (B, ×1000) exhibit grooves from grit paper
grinding and shows hybrid layer remnants and dentinal tubes, which indicates adhesive failure.

Figure 3. SEM pictures from RXU after 150 days with low magnification (A, ×500) and higher magnification (B, ×1000) show composite resin remnants
and no dentinal tubes, which indicates cohesive failure in composite resin.

only expose superficial dentin, forming a nanometer-
thick interaction zone.4 Although the hybrid layer may
be important, its thickness and the associated relation to
tensile bond strength is still unclear.8,9 Therefore, the
mild pH value of the primer of the autopolymerizing
resin alone cannot be responsible for the lower observed
bond strength.
In the past, single-bottle adhesives and auto- or dual-
polymerizing composite resins have been reported to
address issues of incompatibility.12,36 The acidic monomers
of the primer extract important amines from the redox
initiator system of the adhesive.12,36 These tertiary amines
are of importance for polymerizing with the redox initiator
system. A decrease of amines leads to reduced polymeri-
zation at the bonding interface, which might have led to
reduced bond strength with the autopolymerizing resin.12,36
The lower bond strength of the autopolymerizing resin
might be explained by its slow polymerization reaction,
causing water diffusion from the dentin across the hybrid
layer to the resin cement interface to form water droplets,
which prevent copolymerization.2,3,12,23 This could lead to a
lower bond strength to dentin compared with the faster
copolymerization of the dual-polymerizing resins when
used with light-activated polymerization. Tagami et al24 and
Luhrs et al20 reported that faster polymerization had a
positive effect on the bond strength when bonding to
dentin with dual-polymerizing resins, as water droplets
were prevented or at least reduced.
The null hypothesis that thermocycling does not affect
the durability of the bond was confirmed because the
thermocycling did not statistically significantly affect the
tensile bond strength to dentin. All the adhesive luting
resin systems tested appear to have a good resistance
against hydrolysis and thermocycling during the tested
time interval. The bonding interface must be resistant to
the influences of the oral environment to be clinically
successful. Adequate artificial aging should provide com-
plete water saturation to the bonded interfaces over
months.37-40 Thermocycling with prolonged water storage
is a common method of imitating thermal stress and water

Maaßen et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

6 Volume
absorption at the bonding interface in an attempt to
replicate clinical conditions in vitro.25,41 To simulate the
effect of water absorption, a storage period of 150 days was
chosen because the storage period can influence the bond
strength to dentin.22 In the present study, however, no
statistically significant decrease of tensile bond strength
was found, which is contrary to some other studies that
reported a decrease after thermocycling and artificial ag-
ing.40,42 However, no decrease in tensile bond strength
after thermocycling has been reported also in other
studies.13,15,29 One reason for the lack of bond strength
reduction could be the improved integration of the smear
layer, resulting in a more stable hybrid layer. The result is a
thermal- and water saturation-resistant bonding interface,
with no decrease in bond strength.
Limitations of this in vitro study included the rela-
tively small sample size and the absence of other oral
environmental conditions such as masticatory stress or
low-pH challenge. The clinical performance of these
bonding systems is still unclear. Therefore, clinical studies
are required to evaluate the longevity of these adhesive
luting systems.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this in vitro study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The bond strength of the 3 tested dual-polymerizing
resins was higher than that of the autopolymerizing
resin after long-term water storage with thermocy-
cling (P.05).
2. Artificial aging with thermocycling did not signifi-
cantly affect the tensile bond strength of any of the
tested adhesive resin systems (P>.05).
3. A comparison of the 3 dual-polymerizing resins and
their system-specific primers or adhesive shows that
the individual composition has no significant influ-
ence on bond strength and durability.
REFERENCES
1. Cardoso MV, Yoshida Y, van Meerbeek B. Adhesion to Tooth Enamel
and Dentin. A view on the latest technology and future perspectives. In:
Roulet J-F, Kappert HF, editors. Statements diagnostics and therapy in dental
medicine today and in the future. London: Quintessence Publ Co Ltd; 2009.
p. 25-43.
2. Tay FR, Frankenberger R, Krejci I, Bouillaguet S, Pashley DH, Carvalho RM,
et al. Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after poly-
merization. I. In vivo evidence. J Dent 2004;32:611-21.
3. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Coutinho E, Poitevin A,
Yoshida Y, et al. Origin of interfacial droplets with one-step adhesives. J Dent
Res 2007;86:739-44.
4. Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres AP, Vermelho PM, Fronza BM, Nikaido T,
et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 2015;26:
3-10.
5. Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt K,
De Munck J, et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in
adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011;56:31-44.
6. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van
Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27:
17-28.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
- Issue -
7. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H,
et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers.
J Dent Res 2004;83:454-8.
8. Reis A, Grandi V, Carlotto L, Bortoli G, Patzlaff R, Rodrigues Accorinte
Mde L, et al. Effect of smear layer thickness and acidity of self-etching so-
lutions on early and long-term bond strength to dentin. J Dent 2005;33:
549-59.
9. Hiraishi N, Nishiyama N, Ikemura K, Yau JY, King NM, Tagami J, et al. Water
concentration in self-etching primers affects their aggressiveness and
bonding efficacy to dentin. J Dent Res 2005;84:653-8.
10. Nakabayashi N, Ashizawa M, Nakamura M. Identification of a resin-dentin
hybrid layer in vital human dentin created in vivo: durable bonding to vital
dentin. Quintessence Int 1992;23:135-41.
11. Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bertini F, Pierleoni F, Nieri M. Effect of
operator skill in relation to microleakage of total-etch and self-etch bonding
systems. J Dent 2007;35:289-93.
12. Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Adverse surface
interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured
composites. Dent Mater 2001;17:542-56.
13. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43:765-76.
14. Nawareg MM, Zidan AZ, Zhou J, Chiba A, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Adhesive
sealing of dentin surfaces in vitro: a review. Am J Dent 2015;28:321-32.
15. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding perfor-
mance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014;42:
800-7.
16. Pashley DH. Smear layer: overview of structure and function. Proc Finn Dent
Soc 1992;88:215-24.
17. Mine A, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Van Ende A,
et al. Dentin-smear remains at self-etch adhesive interface. Dent Mater
2014;30:1147-53.
18. Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self-etching
enamel-dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005;21:895-910.
19. Lührs AK, De Munck J, Geurtsen W, Van Meerbeek B. Composite cements
benefit from light-curing. Dent Mater 2014;30:292-301.
20. Lührs AK, Pongprueksa P, De Munck J, Geurtsen W, Van Meerbeek B.
Curing mode affects bond strength of adhesively luted composite CAD/CAM
restorations to dentin. Dent Mater 2014;30:281-91.
21. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A,
et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent
Mater 2010;26:100-21.
22. De Munck J, Mine A, Vivan Cardoso M, De Almeida Neves A, Van
Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, et al. Effect of dentin location and long-term water
storage on bonding effectiveness of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater J 2011;30:
7-13.
23. Yang B, Ludwig K, Adelung R, Kern M. Micro-tensile bond strength of three
luting resins to human regional dentin. Dent Mater 2006;22:45-56.
24. Tagami A, Takahashi R, Nikaido T, Tagami J. The effect of curing conditions
on the dentin bond strength of two dual-cure resin cements. J Prosthodont
Res 2017;61:412-8.
25. Sangwichit K, Kingkaew R, Pongprueksa P, Senawongse P. Effect of ther-
mocycling on the durability of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives on
dentin. Dent Mater J 2016;35:360-8.
26. Hummel M, Kern M. Durability of the resin bond strength to the alumina
ceramic Procera. Dent Mater 2004;20:498-508.
27. Passia N, Lehmann F, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Tensile bond strength of
different universal adhesive systems to lithium disilicate ceramic. Am J Dent
Assoc 2015;146:729-34.
28. Elsayed A, Younes F, Lehmann F, Kern M. Tensile bond strength of so-called
universal primers and universal multimode adhesives to zirconia and lithium
disilicate ceramics. J Adhes Dent 2017;19:221-8.
29. Brunzel S, Yang B, Wolfart S, Kern M. Tensile bond strength of a so-called
self-adhesive luting resin cement to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:143-50.
30. Yang B, Adelung R, Ludwig K, Pashley DH, Kern M. Effect of structural
change of collagen fibrils on the durability of dentin bonding. Biomaterials
2005;26:5021-31.
31. Sailer I, Tettamanti S, Stawarczyk B, Fischer J, Hämmerle CH. In vitro study
of the influence of dentin desensitizing and sealing on the shear bond
strength of two universal resin cements. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:381-92.
32. Salz U, Zimmermann J, Salzer T. Self-curing, self-etching adhesive cement
systems. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:7-17.
33. Kitasako Y, Burrow MF, Nikaido T, Tagami J. The influence of storage
solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement. Dent Mater 2000;16:
1-6.
34. Tamura Y, Takamizawa T, Shimamura Y, Akiba S, Yabuki C, Imai A, et al.
Influence of air-powder polishing on bond strength and surface-free energy
of universal adhesive systems. Dent Mater J 2017;36:762-9.
35. Manfroi FB, Marcondes ML, Somacal DC, Borges GA, Junior LH, Spohr AM.
Bond strength of a novel one bottle multi-mode adhesive to human dentin
after six months of storage. Open Dent J 2016;10:268-77.
36. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, Sanares AM, Wei SH. Factors contributing to
the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured
Maaßen et al
- 2019 7

or dual-cured composites. Part I. Single-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes dentin surfaces after temporary cement application. Int J Prosthodont
Dent 2003;5:27-40. 1999;12:230-5.
37. Braden M, Causton EE, Clarke RL. Diffusion of water in composite filling
materials. J Dent Res 1976;55:730-2.
Corresponding author:
38. Diaz-Arnold AM, Arnold MA, Williams VD. Measurement of water sorption
by resin composite adhesives with near-infrared spectroscopy. J Dent Res Dr Marius Maaßen
1992;71:438-42. Department of Prosthodontics
39. Martin N, Jedynakiewicz N. Measurement of water sorption in dental com- Propaedeutics and Dental Materials
posites. Biomaterials 1998;19:77-83. School of Dentistry
40. Söderholm K-J. Water sorption in bis (GMA)/TEGDM resin. J Biomed Mater Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel
Res 1984;18:271-9. Arnold-Heller-Straße 16, 24105 Kiel
41. Kern M, Thompson VP. Influence of prolonged thermal cycling and water GERMANY
storage on the tensile bond strength of composite to NiCr alloy. Dent Mater Email: marius-maassen@t-online.de
1994;10:19-25.
42. Watanabe EK, Yatani H, Yamashita A, Ishikawa K, Suzuki K. Effects of Copyright © 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
thermocycling on the tensile bond strength between resin cement and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.012

Maaßen et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY