Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNima, G.
dc.contributor.authorMakishi, P.
dc.contributor.authorFronza, B.M.
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, P.V.C.
dc.contributor.authorBraga, R.R.
dc.contributor.authorReis, A.F.
dc.contributor.authorGiannini, M.
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-31T18:35:26Z
dc.date.available2025-10-31T18:35:26Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12805/5283
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the kinetics of polymerization and shrinkage stress of resin cements, as well as their bond strength to dentin after 24-h or one-year water storage. Materials and Methods: Three conventional resin cements were evaluated: RelyX Ultimate (RUL), Panavia V5 (PNV), and Multilink N (MLN); and three self-adhesive resin cements: RelyX Unicem 2 (RUN), Panavia SA Cement Plus (PSA), and G-CEM LinkAce (GCL). Degree of conversion (DC), maximum polymerization rate (RP<inf>max</inf>) and gel time va ues were obtained using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR/ATR). Shrinkage stress values were deter mined with a tensiometer, using a universal testing machine (n=5). Indirect resin composite restorations (Solidex) were fabricated and cemented to the dentin surface using self-adhesive resin cements, or conventional resin ce ments with self-etching adhesive (n=5). Bonding performance was evaluated with the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test after 24 h or one year of water storage. Results: MLN exhibited a higher DC (76.7%), whereas the percentage of other materials differed slightly (ranging from 54% to 58.5%). The RPm and shrinkage stress values differed significantly between the cements. PSA showed the longest gel time. Significantly higher μTBS were observed for conventional resin cements after 24-h and one-year storage; a decrease in μTBS was observed for MLN only. Conclusion: Self-adhesive resin cements may not perform as well as conventional resin cements. Although both categories of cements presented similar polymerization kinetics and shrinkage values, the self-adhesive resin ce ments showed lower μTBS compared to those of conventional resin cements. Nevertheless, storage time only af fected the bonding performance of MLNen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding text 1: This work was supported by a grant from the Brazilian Federal Gov ernment Agency, Ministry of Education, Coordination for the Improve ment of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES No. 878/2014) and by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Devel opment (CNPq No. 304692/2018-2); Funding text 2: This work was supported by a grant from the Brazilian Federal Government Agency, Ministry of Education, Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES No. 878/2014) and by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq No. 304692/2018-2).
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing
dc.relation.ispartofurn:issn:1757-9988
dc.rightshttps://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.subjectMechanical Strength and Bonding in Dental Materialsen_US
dc.subjectDental Composite Resin Materialsen_US
dc.titlePolymerization Kinetics, Shrinkage Stress, and Bond Strength to Dentin of Conventional and Self-adhesive Resin Cementsen_US
dc.typehttps://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b3441537
dc.subject.ocdehttps://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.14
dc.type.otherResearch article
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Adhesive Dentistry
dc.type.versionhttps://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2