Abstract
Endodontic access cavities sometimes can be prepared through a permanent composite restoration. Between the appointments, temporary cements are used to seal access cavities and may have negative effect on bonding of further composite restoration. The purpose of this study was to compare shear bond strength of composite to composite which had been in contact with various temporary filling materials. Standard cavities were prepared on 160 acrylic resin blocks, obturated with composite resin (Clearfil AP‐X, Kuraray, Japan) and randomly divided into eight groups (n = 20). Group 1 received no treatment. From group 2–8, composite surfaces were covered with the following cements temporarily: Zinc‐oxide/calcium‐sulphate (Cavit‐G, ESPE, Germany), two different Zinc‐Oxide‐Eugenol materials (ZnOE, Cavex, Holland and IRM, Dentsply, USA), Zinc‐phosphate cement (Adhesor, Spofa‐Dental, Germany), Zinc‐polycarboxylate cement (Adhesor‐Carbofine, Spofa‐Dental, Germany), Glass‐Ionomer‐Cement (Argion‐Molar, Voco, Germany), or light curing temporary material (Clip, Voco, Germany). The cements were removed mechanically after 1 week storage in distilled water at 37°C and composite surfaces were treated with a self‐etch adhesive system (SE‐Bond, Kuraray, Japan). Composite resin build‐ups were created on composite surfaces. Shear bond strength values were measured using universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data was calculated in MPa and statistically analyzed using one‐way ANOVA and Tukey tests. Eugenol‐containing cements significantly reduced shear bond strengths of composite to composite (p < 0.05), while the other temporary materials had no adverse effect on shear bond strength (p > 0.05). These findings suggested that temporary filling materials except eugenol‐containing materials have no negative effect on composite repair bond strengths. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2008