Effect of Two Antibacterial Luting Protocols with and without Immediate-Dentin-Bonding on Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Ceramic to Bur-Cut Cavity Floor Dentin

Summary Background/Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of glass ceramic inlay system using 2 antibacterial adhesive luting protocols with 2 cementation techniques to bur-cut dentin. Material and Methods: Class I inlay cavities with 6-degree occlusal divergence and size of 6-, 3- and 2-mm in length, width and depth, were prepared on extracted human molars, randomly assigned to 2 main groups; each to 1 cementation technique, with or without immediate-dentin-bonding (IDB or NIDB) further divided into 3 subgroups; 2 to 2 antibacterial luting protocols, traditional (T) and experimental (E); and 1 to a control (C) group. In group IDBT, IDB-E and IDB-C dentin bonding was applied immediately after cavity preparation. In group NIDB-T, NIDB-E and NIDB-C dentin bonding was applied just before cementation of the restorations. The cavities in IDB-T and NIDB-T were treated with 2% chlorhexidine-digluconate (CHX) prior to dentin bonding application. The cavities in IDB-E and NIDB-E were treated only with dentin bonding system containing MDPB (12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide) active monomer featuring antibacterial effect. IDB-C and NIDB-C served as control. Dual-cure adhesive resin cement was used for the cementation of lithium disilicate-based ceramic inlay restorations. Fourteen test specimens per group were prepared for microtensile testing and consecutively subjected to tensile load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The mode of failure was observed under SEM and evaluated for each group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to investigate the statistical difference between groups (α=0.05). Results: The microtensile load was 5.96 MPa (median: 5.99 MPa) for IDB-T, 7.23 MPa (median: 7.55 MPa) for IDB-E, 6.68 MPa (median: 6.56 MPa) for IDB-C, 7.24 MPa (median: 7.20 MPa) for NIDB-T, 6.98 MPa (median: 6.30 MPa) for NIDB-E, and 7.02 MPa (median: 6.99 MPa) for NIDB-C, with no statistical difference between the groups (p>0.05). SEM monitoring for mode of failure revealed either cohesive (within resin cement) or adhesive-cohesive (mostly within resin cement along with partially involved areas between resin cement and ceramic restoration) character. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study, none of the tested antibacterial luting protocols with either cementation technique was found to be superior in terms of bond strength.