The objectives of this study were to determine the fracture toughness of adhesive interfaces between dentine and clinically relevant, thin layers of dental luting cements. Cements tested included a conventional glass-ionomer, F (Fuji I), a resin-modified glass-ionomer, FP (Fuji Plus) and a compomer cement, D (DyractCem). Ten miniature short-bar chevron notch specimens were manufactured for each cement, each comprising a 40 μm thick chevron of lute, between two 1.5 mm thick blocks of bovine dentine, encased in resin composite. The interfacial KIC results (MN/m3/2) were median (range): F; 0.152 (0.14-0.16), FP; 0.306 (0.27-0.37), D; 0.351 (0.31-0.37). Non-parametric statistical analysis showed that the fracture toughness of F was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than those of FP or D, and all were significantly lower than values for monolithic cement specimens [26]. Scanning electron microscopy of the specimens suggested crack propagation along the interface. However, energy dispersive X-ray analysis indicated that failure was cohesive within the cement. It is concluded that the fracture toughness of luting cement was lowered by cement-dentine interactions.
HolmesJ. R.SulikW. D.HollandG. A.BayneS. C.Marginal fit of castable ceramic crowns. J. Prosthet. Dent., 1992, 67, 594–599.
2.
TantbirojnD.DouglasW. H.VersluisA.Inhibitive effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement on remote enamel artificial caries. Caries Res., 1997, 31 (4), 275–280.
3.
GeurtsenW.LeyhausenG.Garcia-GodoyF.Effect of storage media on the fluoride release and surface microhardness of four polyacid-modified composite resins compomers. Dent Mater., 1999, 15 (3), 196–201.
4.
PrestonA. J.MairL. H.AgalamanyiE. A.HighamS. M.Fluoride release from aesthetic dental materials. J. Oral Rehabil., 1999, 26 (2), 123–129.
5.
SidhuS. K.WatsonT. F.Interfacial characteristics of resin-modified glass-ionomer materials: A study on fluid permeability using confocal fluorescence microscopy. J. Dent. Res., 1999, 77 (9), 1749–1759.
6.
Van NoortR.NorooziS.HowardI. C.CardewG. E.A critique of bond strength measurements. J. Dent. Res., 1989, 17, 61–67.
7.
Van NoortR.CardewG. E.HowardI. C.NorooziS.The effect of local interfacial geometry on the tensile bond strength to dentine. J. Dent. Res., 1991, 70 (5), 889–893.
8.
StanleyH.Guest Editorial: An urgent plea for a standardised bonding adhesion test. J. Dent. Res., 1994, 72 (10), 1362–1363.
9.
TamL. E.DevS.PilliarR. M.Fracture toughness of conventional or photopolymerised glass-ionomer/dentine interfaces. Oper. Dent., 1995, 20, 144–150.
10.
TantbirojnD.ChengY-S.VersluisA.HodgesJ. S.DouglasW. H.Nominal shear or fracture mechanics in the assessment of composite-dentin adhesion?J. Dent. Res., 2000, 79 (1), 41–48.
LinA.McIntyreN. S.DavidsonR. D.Studies on the adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to dentine. J. Dent. Res., 1992, 71 (11), 1836–1841.
13.
TarnL. E.YimD.Effect of dentine depth on the fracture toughness of dentine-composite adhesive interfaces. J. Dent., 1997, 25 (3), 339–346.
14.
AkinmadeA. O.HillR. G.Influence of cement layer thickness on the adhesive bond strength of polyalkenoate cements. Biomaterials, 1992, 13 (13), 931–936.
15.
AkinmadeA. O.NicholsonJ. W.Effect of adhesive layer thickness on the bond strength of a zinc polycarboxylate dental cement. Biomaterials, 1995, 16, 149–154.
16.
BarkerL. M.Theory for determining KIC from small, non LEFM specimens, supported by experiments on aluminium. Int. J. Fract., 1979, 15, 515–536.
17.
LinC. P.Structure property function relationships in the dentine enamel complex and tooth restoration interface. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, 1993.
18.
FujishimaA.FerracaneJ. L.Comparison of four modes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites. Dent. Mater., 1996, 12: 38–43.
19.
El MowafyO. M.WattsD. C.Fracture toughness of human dentin. J. Dent. Res., 1986, 65 (5), 677–681.
20.
KinlochA.Adhesion and adhesives: Science and technology, 1990 (Chapman & Hall, New York).
21.
CharalambidesP. G.CaoH. C.LundJ.EvansA. G.Development of a test method for measuring the mixed mode fracture resistance of bimaterial interfaces. Mech. Mater., 1990, 8, 269–283.
22.
NakamichiI.IwakuM.FusayamaT.Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J. Dent. Res., 1983, 62 (10), 1076–1081.
23.
SchmalzG.HillerK. A.NunezL. J.StollJ.WeisK.Permeability characteristics of bovine and human dentine under different pre-treatment conditions. J. Endodontics, 2001, 27 (1), 23–30.
24.
SchilkeR.BaussO.LissonJ. A.SchuckarM.GeurtsenW.Bovine dentin as a substitute for human dentin in shear bond strength measurements. Am. J. Dentistry, 1999, 12 (2), 92–96.
25.
MitchellC. A.OrrJ. F.KennedyJ. G.Factors influencing the failure of dental glass-ionomer luting cement due to contraction. Biomaterials, 1995, 16 (1), 11–16.
26.
RyanA. K.OrrJ. F.MitchellC. A.A comparative evaluation of dental luting cements by fracture toughness tests and fractography. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H, J. Engineering in Medicine, 2001, 215, 65–73.
27.
ScherrerS. S.DenryI. L.WiskottH. W.Comparison of three fracture toughness testing techniques using a dental glass and a dental ceramic. Dent. Mater., 1998, 14 (4), 246–255.
28.
SennouH. E.LebugleA. A.GregoireG. L.X-ray photelectron spectroscopy study of the dentin-glass ionomer cement interface. Dent. Mats., 1999, 15, 229–237.
29.
YoshidaY.Van MeerbeckB.NakayamaY.SnauwaertJ.HellemansL.LambrechtsP.VanherleG.WakasaK.Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial-hard tissue interfaces. J. Dent. Res., 2000, 77 (9), 1749–1759.
30.
NgoH.MountG. J.PetersM. C.R.B.A study of glass-ionomer cement and its interface with enamel and dentin using a low-temperature, high resolution scanning electron microscope technique. Quint Int., 1997, 28, 63–69.
31.
HosoyaY.Garcia-GodoyF.Bonding mechanism of Ketac-Molar Aplicap and Fuji IX GP to enamel and dentin. Am. J. Dent., 1998, 19 (11), 235–239.
32.
VersluisA.TantbirojnD.DouglasW. H.Why do shear bond tests pull out dentin?J. Dent. Res., 1997, 76 (6), 1298–1307.
33.
WangX.AgrawalC. M.A mixed mode fracture toughness test of bone-biomaterial interfaces. J. Biomed. Mat. Res., 2000, 53 (6), 664–672.
