Effectiveness of Self-Adhesive Resin Luting Cement in CAD-CAM Blocks-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Type: Another Publication in an International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2023

Authors

Calheiros Lobo, MJ (Author) Other; Vieira, T (Author) Other; Ricardo Carbas (Author) FEUP; da Silva, LFM (Author) FEUP; Pinho, T (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Materials

Vol. 138

Final page: 2996

ISSN: 1996-1944

Publisher: MDPI

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 0 Citations

Scopus - 0 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00Y-BJ4

DOI: 10.3390/ma16082996

Abstract (EN): Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or adhesive systems. SARCs are generally dual-cured, photoactivated, and self-cured, with a slight increase in acidic pH, allowing self-adhesiveness and increasing resistance to hydrolysis. This systematic review assessed the adhesive strength of SARC systems luted to different substrates and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic blocks. The PubMed/MedLine and Science Direct databases were searched using the Boolean formula [((dental or tooth) AND (self-adhesive) AND (luting or cement) AND CAD-CAM) NOT (endodontics or implants)]. Of the 199 articles obtained, 31 were selected for the quality assessment. Lava Ultimate (resin matrix filled with nanoceramic) and Vita Enamic (polymer-infiltrated ceramic) blocks were the most tested. Rely X Unicem 2 was the most tested resin cement, followed by Rely X Unicem > Ultimate > U200, and mu TBS was the test most used. The meta-analysis confirmed the substrate-dependent adhesive strength of SARCs, with significant differences between them and between SARCs and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (alpha < 0.05). SARCs are promising. However, one must be aware of the differences in the adhesive strengths. An appropriate combination of materials must be considered to improve the durability and stability of restorations.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 22