A comprehensive in vitro study on the performance of two different strategies to simplify adhesive bonding

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the bonding performance and mechanical properties of two different resin composite cements using simplified adhesive bonding strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Shear bond strength of two resin composite cements (an adhesive cement: Panavia V5 [PV5] and a self‐adhesive cement: RelyX Universal [RUV]) to human enamel, dentin, and a variety of restorative materials (microfilled composite, composite, polymer‐infiltrated ceramic, feldspar ceramic, lithium disilicate and zirconia) was measured. Thermocycle aging was performed with selected material combinations. RESULTS: For both cements, the highest shear bond strength to dentin was achieved when using a primer (PV5: 18.0 ± 4.2 MPa, RUV: 18.2 ± 3.3 MPa). Additional etching of dentin reduced bond strength for RUV (12.5 ± 4.9 MPa). On enamel, PV5 achieved the highest bond strength when the primer was used (18.0 ± 3.1 MPa), while for RUV etching of enamel and priming provided best results (21.2 ± 6.6 MPa). Shear bond strength of RUV to restorative materials was superior to PV5. Bonding to resin‐based materials was predominantly observed for RUV. CONCLUSIONS: While use of RUV with the selective‐etch technique is slightly more labor intensive than PV5, RUV (with its universal primer) displayed a high‐bonding potential to all tested restorative materials, especially to resin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For a strong adhesion to the tooth substrate, PV5 (with its tooth primer) is to be preferred because etching with phosphoric acid is not required. However, when using a wide range of varying restorative materials, RUV with its universal primer seems to be an adequate option.