Bioceramic materials have shown biologic and physical properties favorable for regenerative treatment. A key to treatment success is an adequate restoration to prevent microleakage; however, research is limited regarding the bond strength between restorative and bioceramic materials used in regenerative procedures. This study compared the bond strength between 4 bioceramic materials and a dual-cure composite resin.
Eighty wells in Teflon (ePlastics, San Diego, CA) blocks were filled with bioceramic materials representing 4 groups: White ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and NeoMTA (Avalon Biomed Inc, Houston, TX). After allowing samples to set according to the manufacturers’ instructions, exposed surfaces of the bioceramic materials were prepared using ClearFil SE Bond (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY) followed by restoration with ClearFil DC Core Plus (Kuraray America, Inc.). To test shear bond strength, each block was secured in a universal testing machine, and the crosshead was advanced at 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Newton peak force was recorded and megapascals calculated followed by data comparison.
The mean shear bond strengths between ClearFil DC Core Plus and the bioceramic materials were as follows: White ProRoot MTA, 7.96 MPa; Biodentine, 9.18 MPa; EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty, 4.47 MPa; and NeoMTA, 5.72 MPa. White ProRoot MTA and Biodentine were statistically similar, with a higher stress bond strength than NeoMTA, which had a statistically greater bond strength than EndoSequence Root Repair Material. All these values were lower than typical bond strengths shown for dentin-composite resin bonding.
The choice of which bioceramic material to use in regenerative procedures should be based on factors other than the bond between that material and the overlying coronal resin restoration.