Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 3195    

Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 332-335
The effectiveness of various functional monomers in self-adhesive resin cements on prosthetic materials

1 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Rangsit University, Pathumthani, Thailand
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
3 Division of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand; Thammasat University Research Unit in Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand

Date of Submission16-Feb-2022
Date of Decision19-Mar-2022
Date of Acceptance05-Apr-2022
Date of Web Publication29-Jun-2022

Correspondence Address:
Awiruth Klaisiri
Division of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_50_22

Rights and Permissions


Aim: This study examined the influence of various functional monomers in two self-adhesive resin cements (SACs) on prosthetic materials. Materials and Methods: Base metal alloy, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, and zirconia were used as bonding materials. Silicon carbide paper was used to polish the specimens. Two self-adhesive resin cements (Panavia SA luting multi, PAM, and Maxcem elite chroma, MAC) were used. Ten specimens for each material were produced and resin cements were bonded to each material. The specimens were stored in 37°C distilled water in an incubator for 24 hours. A universal testing machine was used to measure the shear bond strength. The data were statistically examined using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: In all prosthetic materials, PAM had the highest bond strength. In lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, the lowest bond strength was found with MAC. Conclusion: The self-adhesive resin cement (PAM) containing 10-MDP monomer and long carbon-chain silane was performed the greatest outcome in the shear bond strength on the prosthetic materials and self-adhesive resin cement interface.

Keywords: Base metal alloy, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, self-adhesive resin cement, zirconia

How to cite this article:
Sriamporn T, Thamrongananskul N, Klaisiri A. The effectiveness of various functional monomers in self-adhesive resin cements on prosthetic materials. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2022;12:332-5

How to cite this URL:
Sriamporn T, Thamrongananskul N, Klaisiri A. The effectiveness of various functional monomers in self-adhesive resin cements on prosthetic materials. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 3];12:332-5. Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2022/12/3/332/348782

   Introduction Top

The luting process for adhesive resin cement appears to have a more important role in bonding to indirect restorations. Cementation is an important step in guaranteeing indirect restorations’ longevity and clinical success.[1] Certainly, in certain clinical situations, resin adhesive cements must be used. Resin cements are becoming more popular as a result of their superior mechanical characteristics, excellent retention, and color match.[2],[3] However, adhesive resin cements requires multiple luting procedures. Accordingly, there have been reports of self-adhesive resin cements that need less clinical steps, designed at reducing the luting step of indirect restorations.[4],[5]

Self-adhesive resin cements (SACs) combine the ease of use of conventional luting cements with enhanced mechanical properties and bonding potentiality of adhesive resin cements.[6],[7] SACs bonds to prosthetic materials and tooth structures without requiring the pretreatment of substrates. Thus, SACs are very simple to apply and may be used in only one clinical luting step.[6]

SACs’ bonding capabilities are influenced by their chemical characteristics. The cement’s matrix, composing of acidic phosphate/carboxylate functional molecules such 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) and glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate (GPDM), results in chemical adherence to metal oxides, including such base metal alloy, zirconia.[8],[9] Unfortunately, there is still some controversy. SACs matrix’s contains of acidic functional methacrylate monomers. If a variety of acidic functional molecules interact with the prosthetic material and create a chemical interaction strong enough. The goal of this in vitro experiment was to examine the effect of various functional monomers in two SACs on prosthetic materials. The study’s null research hypothesis was that the varied functional monomers of SACs have no effect on the shear bond strength of the different prosthetic materials and the SACs interface.

   Materials and Methods Top

Specimen preparation

In this investigation, three different types of prosthetic materials were tested: 1) Base metal alloy (BMA, Alloy Name: N.P. (V) with <3% of Ferrum (Fe), Silicon (Si), Carbon (C), 1.8% Beryllium (Be), 2% Aluminium (Al), 9% Molybdenum (Mo), 15% Chromium (Cr), and 72% Nickel (Ni); Dental Art Lab, Bangkok, Thailand), 2) Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDC, IPS e-max, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan Liechtenstein), and 3) Zirconia (ZIR, VITA YZ HT, Zahnfabrik, Germany). All specimens (diameter is 6.0 mm, thickness is 4.0 mm) were placed within a polyvinyl chloride pipe filled with type IV dental gypsum. All samples had their surfaces polished using silicon carbide sandpaper of 600 grit (RS Components Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand) after that 15 minutes distilled water ultrasonic cleaning and then using a triple syringe, dry for 10 seconds.

[Table 1] summarizes the SACs that were examined in this investigation. In this research, two self-adhesive resin cements (PAM, Panavia SA luting multi, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan and MAC, Maxcem elite chroma, Kerr Corporation, California, USA) were used. The manufacturers’ guidelines were followed for mixing SACs. Custom-built silicone mold (Honigum putty, DMG GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, diameter is 2.0 mm, thickness is 2.0 mm) were put over the prosthetic material. The silicone mold was injected with self-adhesive resin cement, followed by the application of a steady force of 1,000 grams for 30 seconds utilizing a custom-built apparatus, and then kept in yellow box at room temperature for 10 minutes. After that, the silicone molds were removed. The total of ten specimens (n = 10) were utilized in each group; 1) PAM + BMA, 2) PAM + LDC, 3) PAM + ZIR, 4) MAC + BMA, 5) MAC + LDC, and 6) MAC + ZIR. Before testing, all bonded samples were stored in 37°C distilled water in an incubator for 24 hours. (CN-25C, Matsuyoshi and Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
Table 1: Self-adhesive resin cements used in this investigation

Click here to view

Testing for shear bond strength and surface analysis

Universal testing equipment (EZ-S 500N, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) with a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm per minute was also utilized to assess the shear bond strength. The maximum load of fracture and surface zone for bonding were utilized to obtain the shear bond strength value in megapascal (MPa).[10]

To investigate failure types, the fracture prosthetic surfaces were analyzed by a stereomicroscope (1013369, 3B Scientific GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) at 40 times (x40) magnification. The types of failure were categorized within three classes: 1) adhesive failure at the prosthetic surface and self-adhesive resin cement interface, 2) cohesive failure inside the self-adhesive resin cement, and 3) mixed failure occurred caused by a combination of the both.

Analytical statistics

To analyze the data statistically, one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were utilized. Statistically significant difference was determined when the p-value was less below 0.05 (p < 0.05).

   Results Top

The shear bond strength ranged from the highest to the lowest as follows: 1) PAM + LDC, 2) PAM + ZIR, 3) PAM + BMA, 4) MAC + BMA, 5) MAC + ZIR, and 6) MAC + LDC. However, there was no statistical difference between PAM + LDC, PAM + ZIR, and PAM + BMA (p > 0.05). In this study, all prosthetic materials showed predominantly adhesive failure. Details were summarized in [Table 2].
Table 2: The mean SBS values (MPa) (X±SD, n = 10). Failure mode percentage (adhesive/mix/cohesive)

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

This research tested the effect of various functional monomers in two SACs on prosthetic materials. The results demonstrate that the shear bond strength from each group is significantly different. As a result, the null research hypothesis was disproved.

Among of the most recent developments in restorative and prosthetic dentistry was the development of SACs. Because most SACs are composed of particular carboxylate and/or phosphate functional molecules, the composition is a significant consideration. For instance, the acidic functional monomer 10-MDP is present in several SACs.[11] It’s a functional monomer that’s hydrophilic with mild self-etching properties, with a proven ability to bond to the tooth,[12] base metal alloy, titanium,[13],[14] and zirconia.[15],[16]

The mild self-etching capability is ascribed to the appearance of the acidic functional monomers, which might vary based on resin cement category. Even though these two SACs have relatively comparable filler and resin matrix compositions, significant variances on shear bond strength were detected among the 10-MDP specimen and the GPDM specimen. It’s possible that the discrepancy is related to the acidity functional monomer found in each self-adhesive resin cement. PAM contains methacrylated phosphoric esters as 10-MDP and long carbon-chain silane (LCCS), whereas MAC contains methacrylated phosphoric esters as GPDM. In the present study, in all of the groups, PAM had the strongest shear bond. PAM containing 10-MDP can create strong shear bond strength to base metal alloy and zirconia. The 10-MDP chemical reaction with the oxide layer of the base metal alloy or zirconium oxide may explain the high shear bond strength on base metal alloys and zirconia. 10-MDP is an acidic phosphate functional monomer along a lengthy chain spacer of - (CH2)n than GPDM.[17] The long chain spacer of - (CH2)n might increase the self-adhesive resin cement’s hydrophobicity, its binding strength was deemed to be superior to that of other SACs containing various acidic phosphate functional monomers. Moreover, Nagaoka et al.,[18] found that there may be increased chemical adhesion if there is a large quantity of 10-MDP. PAM appears to have more 10-MDP than any other self-adhesive resin cement.[19] Furthermore, PAM exhibited the strongest shear bond strength in lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. PAM containing LCCS can create strong shear bond power with lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. The LCCS is characterized with a bifunctional adhesion function; (a) chemical bonding with lithium disilicate glass-ceramics through siloxane bonds; (b) co-polymerization of the monomers within the self-adhesive resin cement through methacrylate groups.[20] In addition, Mano et al.,[21] reported that after 5,000 thermocycles of age, the presence of LCCS in self-adhesive resin cement is important for achieving long-term bond ability in lithium disilicate glass-ceramic.

In the present investigation, MAC showed lower shear bond strength than PAM in all prosthetic materials as its GPDM acidic functional monomer composition. A MAC containing GPDM can make weak shear bond strength to base metal alloy and zirconia. GPDM is an acidic phosphate functional monomer along a shorter chain spacer of - (CH2)n and higher hydrophilicity compared to 10-MDP.[22] The acidic phosphate functional monomer of MAC becomes deficient for stimulating chemical adhesion, and therefore, strong shear bond strength will not be achieved. It’s reasonable to assume that GPDM’s chemical adhesion efficacy is inferior to that of 10-MDP. However, GPDM also has two methacrylate polymerizable groups, which is a unique feature. Thus conduces to bond with the other monomers within SACs and prosthetic substrate more greatly than other acidic functional monomers with only one polymerizable group. The polymer structure’s quality and the mechanical characteristics of SACs are both enhanced when the degree of polymerization is increased.[23] Regarding, the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, MAC had the weakest shear bond ability of all the samples. MAC not containing LCCS has not the ability to create a bond to lithium disilicate glass-ceramic.

In terms of fracture mode, shear bond strength testing can reveal primarily adhesive and mixed failure mechanisms. All of the groups had a high rate of adhesive failures. High shear bond strength was frequently associated with mixed failure modes. This could be due to the self-adhesive resin cement’s improved chemical bond. In the case of MAC in lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, adhesive failure was observed in all specimens, because it had lower shear bond strength than the other groups relatively, which caused in adhesive failures of all specimens.

   Conclusion Top

The research’s limitations are contained inside the area of the study, the self-adhesive resin cement (PAM) containing 10-MDP monomer and LCCS was performed the greatest outcome in the shear bond strength on the prosthetic materials and self-adhesive resin cement interface.


The authors would like to thank all respondents for their contribution to this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

This work was supported by the Thammasat University Research Unit in Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Thammasat University, Thailand.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Authors’ contribution

TS, NT, and AK designed the study. TS and AK performed the study and collected data. TS, NT, and AK analyzed and interpreted the data. AK drafted the article. TS, NT, and AK revised the article. TS, NT, and AK approved the final version of the article and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Ethical policy and institutional review board statement

Not applicable.

Patient declaration of consent

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

   References Top

Solon-de-Mello M, da Silva Fidalgo TK, Dos Santos Letieri A, Masterson D, Granjeiro JM, Monte Alto RV, et al. Longevity of indirect restorations cemented with self-adhesive resin luting with and without selective enamel etching. A Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31:327-37.  Back to cited text no. 1
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280-301.  Back to cited text no. 2
Braga RR, Ballester RY, Daronch M Influence of time and adhesive system on the extrusion shear strength between feldspathic porcelain and bovine dentin. Dent Mater 2000;16:303-10.  Back to cited text no. 3
Aguiar TR, Di Francescantonio M, Ambrosano GM, Giannini M Effect of curing mode on bond strength of self-adhesive resin luting cements to dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;93:122-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
de Sá Barbosa WF, Aguiar TR, Francescantonio MD, Cavalcanti AN, de Oliveira MT, Giannini M Effect of water storage on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to zirconium oxide ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:145-50.  Back to cited text no. 5
Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:295-314.  Back to cited text no. 6
Weiser F, Behr M Self-adhesive resin cements: A clinical review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:100-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
Hattar S, Hatamleh M, Khraisat A, Al-Rabab’ah M Shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to base metal alloy. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:411-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
Yang L, Chen B, Meng H, Zhang H, He F, Xie H, et al. Bond durability when applying phosphate ester monomer-containing primers vs. Self-adhesive resin cements to zirconia: Evaluation after different aging conditions. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:193-201.  Back to cited text no. 9
Klaisiri A, Krajangta N, Peampring C, Sriamporn T, Thamrongananskul N, Neff A, et al. Shear bond strength of different functional monomer in universal adhesives at the resin composite/base metal alloys interface. J Int Dent Med Res 2021;14:187-91.  Back to cited text no. 10
Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G Classification review of dental adhesive systems: From the Iv generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017;8:1-17.  Back to cited text no. 11
Jayasheel A, Niranjan N, Pamidi H, Suryakanth MB Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of universal dental adhesives -an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9:e892-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
Tsuchimoto Y, Yoshida Y, Mine A, Nakamura M, Nishiyama N, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Effect of 4-Met- and 10-Mdp-based primers on resin bonding to titanium. Dent Mater J 2006;25:120-4.  Back to cited text no. 13
Ikemura K, Kojima K, Endo T, Kadoma Y Effect of the combination of dithiooctanoate monomers and acidic adhesive monomers on adhesion to precious metals, precious metal alloys and non-precious metal alloys. Dent Mater J 2011;30:469-77.  Back to cited text no. 14
Thompson JY, Stoner BR, Piascik JR, Smith R Adhesion/cementation to zirconia and other non-silicate ceramics: Where are we now? Dent Mater 2011;27:71-82.  Back to cited text no. 15
Llerena-Icochea AE, Costa RM, Borges A, Bombonatti J, Furuse AY Bonding polycrystalline zirconia with 10-Mdp-containing adhesives. Oper Dent 2017;42:335-41.  Back to cited text no. 16
Senyilmaz DP, Palin WM, Shortall AC, Burke FJ The effect of surface preparation and luting agent on bond strength to a zirconium-based ceramic. Oper Dent 2007;32:623-30.  Back to cited text no. 17
Inokoshi M, De Munck J, Minakuchi S, Van Meerbeek B Meta-analysis of bonding effectiveness to zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res 2014;93:329-34.  Back to cited text no. 18
Nagaoka N, Yoshihara K, Feitosa VP, Tamada Y, Irie M, Yoshida Y, et al. Chemical interaction mechanism of 10-Mdp with zirconia. Sci Rep 2017;7:45563.  Back to cited text no. 19
Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Burrow MF Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2014;30:e147-62.  Back to cited text no. 20
Maño EP, Algarra RM, Fawzy A, Leitune VCB, Collares FM, Feitosa V, et al. In vitro bonding performance of modern self-adhesive resin cements and conventional resin-modified glass ionomer cements to prosthetic substrates. Appl Sci 2020;10:8157.  Back to cited text no. 21
Wang R, Shi Y, Li T, Pan Y, Cui Y, Xia W Adhesive interfacial characteristics and the related bonding performance of four self-etching adhesives with different functional monomers applied to dentin. J Dent 2017;62:72-80.  Back to cited text no. 22
Hass V, Dobrovolski M, Zander-Grande C, Martins GC, Gordillo LA, Rodrigues Accorinte Mde L, et al. Correlation between degree of conversion, resin-dentin bond strength and nanoleakage of simplified etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater 2013;29:921-8.  Back to cited text no. 23


  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Print this article  Email this article
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (195 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Materials and Me...
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded81    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal