1http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v19i0.8658204 Volume 19 2020 e208204 Original Article 1 Department of Odontological Clinic, School of Dentistry, University Center of the State of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil. 2 Department of Materials Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil. 3 Department of Dental Materials Science, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil. Corresponding author: Maria Helena Rossy Borges Tv. Benjamin Constant 845, 66053-040, Belém-PA, Brazil; E-mail: mariahelena.rb@hotmail.com; Tel 55+ 91 981053100. Received: January 27, 2020 Accepted: August 16, 2020 Evaluation of physical-mechanical properties of self-adhesive versus conventional resin cements Maria Helena Rossy Borges1,* , Carmen Gilda Barroso Tavares Dias2 , Cristiane de Melo Alencar3 , Cecy Martins Silva3 , Renata Antunes Esteves1 Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the microhardness, diametral tensile strength, compressive strength and the rheological properties of self-adhesive versus conventional resin cements. Methods: Specimens of a conventional (RelyX ARC) and 3 self-adhesive (RelyX U200, Maxcem Elite, Bifix SE) types of resin cements were prepared. The Knoop test was used to assess the microhardness, using a Microhardness Tester FM 700. For the diametral tensile strength test, a tensile strength was applied at a speed of 0.6 mm/ minute. A universal testing machine was used for the analysis of compressive strength and a thermo-controlled oscillating rheometer was used for the Rheology test. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05) were used for data analysis. Results: According to microhardness analysis, all the cements were statistically similar (p>0.05), except for Maxcem that presented lower hardness compared with the other cements in relation to the top surface (p<0.05). In the diametral tensile strength test, Relyx U200 and RelyX ARC cements were statistically similar (p>0.05), presented higher value when compared to the Maxcem and Bifix cements (p<0.05). The compressive strength of RelyX ARC and Maxcem Elite cements was statistically higher than RelyX U200 and Bifix cements (p<0.05). Regarding the rheology test, Maxcem Elite and RelyX ARC cements showed a high modulus of elasticity. Conclusions: The self-adhesive cements presented poorer mechanical properties than conventional resin cement. Chemical structure and types of monomers employed interfere directly in the mechanical properties of resin cements. KEYWORDS: Cementation. Dental materials. Flexural strength. Longevity. Resin cements. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-4827 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8834-8364 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0694-6863 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-8848 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3421-2365 2 Borges et al. Introduction The performance of resin cement on the luting procedure and their mechanical prop- erties are essential requirements for the clinical success of indirect restorations1. Moreover, due to its low solubility, high bonding strength, better physical and mechan- ical properties such as high values of fracture toughness, tensile strength and com- pression, resin cements are frequently used in the cementation of ceramics2-4. Never- theless, the broad variety of brands and types of resin cements makes the selection of material difficult for the dentist. Resin cements were developed to be used in the cementation of indirect restorations and intra-radicular pins; thus, they contain different types of monomers that connect to each other during the polymerization reaction5. Therefore, the cement composi- tion is generally a mixture of dimethacrylate monomers, such as: BisGMA (bisphe- nol A diglycidil Dimethacrylate), TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), UDMA (Urethane Dimethacrylate) and inorganic fillers which vary according to the trade- marks and initiator. Silica or high-molecular-weight oligomers can also be added to modify rheological properties and achieve optimum handling characteristics6. How- ever, the manufacturers of several materials often do not entirely disclose details of cement composition. The dual-cure resin cements are available on the dental market and are consid- ered practical to use, because they combine benefits such as working time and the mechanical properties of both light cure and chemical cure resin cements7. However, the chemical polymerization associated with photopolymerization pro- vides better monomer conversion8. Furthermore, these cements can be classified in two categories according to adhesive cementing technique: conventional and self-adhesive resin cements. The self-adhesive resin cements are considered to be easier to use, once do not require any pretreatment of dental substrate9. The bonding mechanism of conventional resin cement depends on the type of adhesive used in combination with this system, whereas the bonding mechanism of self-ad- hesive resin cements to dental tissues depends on chemical reactions among acid monomer or phosphoric acid ester with calcium of enamel and dentin10. In addi- tion, the clinical indications of self-adhesive and conventional resin cements are resembling. However, differences in chemical compositions may lead to dissimilar mechanical properties11. These cements must be selected according to the clinical conditions of each case, the physical properties of the indirect restorative material and the physical and bio- logical characteristics of the cementitious materials, such as adhesiveness, solubility, resistance and biocompatibility12. Hence, for clinical success with long term follow-up, it is important that the cementitious material exhibits mechanical stability, since the filling is subjected daily to mechanical forces such as mastication, and also to para- functional habits such as bruxism and tightening13. Therefore, in order to assess the ability of the material to withstand these types of stress, mechanical tests such as compressive strength and diametral traction are increasingly applied in research. In addition, to evaluate the surface of the material, 3 Borges et al. degree of conversion, rate of wear and other properties, a microhardness mechanical test is performed. Tests such as rheology are extremely important to understand the behavior of the material. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the micro- hardness, diametral tensile strength, compressive strength and the rheological prop- erties of self-adhesive versus conventional resin cements. The null hypothesis tested was: there are no significant differences in physical-mechanical properties between the conventional resin cement and the self-adhesive resin cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS In order to carry out the experiment, samples were prepared from specific matrices, which were made with resin cements (Table 1). For the microhardness analysis, the samples were made from a circular Teflon matrix with 2 mm of height and 8 mm of diameter. For the preparation of each sam- ple (total of 4 samples), the cement was introduced into the single-increment circu- lar matrix which was pressed between two polyester strips and glass coverslips, so the surfaces would be smooth. Afterwards, photoactivation was carried out with a LED dental curing light device (Elipar Freelight 2, 3M ESPE, USA) with irradiance of 800 W² for 20 seconds. Immediately after being made, the samples were removed from the matrix and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. After this period, the Knoop microhardness test was performed on the top and base surfaces, using an FM 700 microhardness tester (Future Teck Kanagawa, Japan), applying a load of 25 grams for 30 seconds. By activating the penetrator of the equipment, a compression was applied to the sample, which generated an indentation (diamond-shaped geometric print) on its surface. Three indentations were made on each top and base surface of each sample. Then, the Knoop hardness average was obtained for each sample by applying the values found with the indentations with the equation: KNH = C x c / d2. Table 1. The materials used in the study and their composition according to their manufacturers Resin Cements (Lote No) Manufactures Type Resin Matrix RelyX ARC (N502901) 3M ESPE (3M/ESPE,St Paul, MN, USA) Dual-cured Conventional cement Bis-GMA, TEGDMA RelyX U200 (1518200193) 3M ESPE (3M/ESPE,St Paul, MN, USA) Dual-cured Self-adhesive Bis-phenol-A-bis-(2-hydroxy-3- methacryloxypropyl), Ether Bis-GMA, TEGDMA Maxcem Elite (5925082) Kerr (Orange,CA, USA) Dual-cured Self-adhesive GPDM, HEMA Bifix SE (1621136) Voco GmbH, (Cuxhaven. Germany) Dual-cured Self-adhesive Bis-GMA,UDMA,Gly-DMA, Phosphatemonomers Bis-GMA bisphenol A dimethacrylate; TEGDMA triethylen glycol dimethacrylate; GPDM glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate; HEMA hydroxyethyl methacrylate; UDMA urethane dimethacrylate; Gly-DMA glycerol dimethacrylate. 4 Borges et al. Where: KNH is the Knoop hardness value; C (constant) = 14.230; c = 25 grams; d is the length of the longest diagonal of the indentation. A cylindrical matrix (1 ml insulin syringe, SR Insulin U-100 Luer Slip) with cylindrical specimen (8 mm high and 2 mm diameter) was used to test the mechanical resis- tance to diametral tensile. The material was handled properly and inserted into the matrix with a plastic spatula. The test was performed 24 hours after the prepara- tion. After the resin cement was inserted into the tube, the photopolymerization was carried out, following the manufacturer’s instructions. Each pick was then removed from the syringe with an exploratory probe that pushed it out of the tube. All samples were previously assessed in a 30x magnification optical microscope (OPMI pico®, Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to verify their structural integrity. Ten samples of each resin cement and its respective control and experimental groups were made for each group. The samples were individually attached to the ends of a special traction device and mounted on the Instron universal testing machine, model 4411 (Instron Inc. Canton, MA, USA). The strength was tested by applying tensile forces at a speed of 0.6 mm/min. The axial compression test used a cylindrical matrix (1 ml insulin syringe, SR Insulin U-100 Luer Slip) whose sample was cylindrical in shape (8 mm height and 2 mm diameter). For each group, 10 samples of each resin cement and its respective control and experimental groups were made. The material was handled properly and inserted in the matrix with a plastic spatula. The test was performed 24 hours after the preparation. Samples were taken to the Instron universal test- ing machine, model 4411 (Instron Inc. Canton, MA, USA). After obtaining the nec- essary loads for the rupture of the samples, the compressive strength was cal- culated: Compressive strength = load/ π.r2 (MPa), where: π= 3.14 (constant) and r = cylinder base radius. The rheology test used a thermo-controlled oscillating rheometer (Thermo Scien- tific HAAKE RheoStress 6000 Design) driver, version 13. The parallel plate model with a diameter of 35mm was used to measure the rheological properties of the materials. The space between the plates was 1 mm. The material was handled according to the manufacturer’s instructions and inserted into the plate. The aver- age initial temperature was 25°C and the final temperature reached 250°C. The test time ranged from 0 to 600 seconds. Therefore, the test was performed at an angular frequency of 100 to 0.01 rad.s-1, determining, due to sinusoidal voltage, the viscosity and the modulus of viscosity. In a dynamic oscillatory shear test with an oscillating frequency (ω) and the phase difference (δ) between stress (σ) and strain (y), the strain and the stress in a complex formula are as follows: Strain y(t) = y0 e i(ωt), stress σ(t) = σ0 e i(ωt+δ). The complex shear modulus, G*, is defined as stress over strain G* = eiδ == (cos δ + i sin δ)= G’+ iG’’ σ(t) γ(t) σ0 γ0 σ0 γ0 . Where G’ is the real (storage) shear modulus and G” is the imaginary (loss) shear modulus. The magnitude of the complex modulus is given by: |G*| = σ0/γ0 = (G’) 2 + (G”)2 and the complex viscosity n* = G*/ = ω. G’ is a measure of stored energy without phase difference between the stress and strain, and represents the elastic component of the material. In contrast, G” represents the viscosity of the materials, and it is a measure of the energy lost as heat. The ratio G”/G’ is the loss tangent, tan δ, which represents the ratio of the viscous part to the 5 Borges et al. elastic part (energy loss/energy stored) of the materials. The G’, G”, n*, and tan δ of the composite specimens were measured, and the relationships between these measured values and the resin matrix formulations of the experimental composites were investigated14. After reaching the results, the values were tabulated and submitted to a statistical analysis. First, it was evaluated whether the data presented a normal distribution and homoscedasticity, so that the One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s range test could be applied. The level of significance was 5% (p <0.05). RESULTS Table 2 shows the microhardness values of all the cements analyzed. In this test, all the cements were statistically similar (p>0.05), except for Maxcem that presented lower hardness compared with the other cements in relation to the top surface (p<0.05). For all cements, the microhardness values of the top surface were higher than the basal area. Table 3 brings the diametral tensile values of all the cements analyzed. The RelyX U200 and RelyX ARC presented the highest values (p>0.05). A significant differ- ence was observed between Bifix and Maxcem in comparison to the other cements analyzed (p<0.05). Table 2. Averages (standard deviation) of microhardness of resin cements Cement Microhardness TOP Microhardness BASE RelyX U200 41.2 (1.3)A 35.7 (1.4)B RelyX ARC 43.9 (2.1)A 37.8 (0.8)B Bifix SE 42.0 (0.7)A 35.4 (2.1)B Maxcem Elite 36.6 (0.3)B 34.3 (1.3)B Means followed by the same capital letter in the column do not present significant statistical difference (p>0.05). Table 3. Averages (standard deviation) of Diametral Tensile Strength of resin cements. Cement Diametral Tensile Strength RelyX U200 155.6 (19.7)A RelyX ARC 144.3 (12.4)A Bifix SE 97.2 (10.6)C Maxcem Elite 116.8 (11.8)B Means followed by the same capital letter in the column do not present significant statistical difference. (p>0.05). 6 Borges et al. Table 4 presents the compression values of all the cements analyzed. The RelyX ARC showed the highest compressive strength without statistical difference to Maxcem (p>0.05). The lowest value was obtained for Bifix with significant difference for the other cements analyzed (p<0.05). According to the rheology test, was verified that the resin cements RelyX ARC and Maxcem Elite presented high Elasticity Modulus (EM). Both presented high EM at the beginning of the test. In addition, the four cements had similar behavioral character- istics over the period of 100 seconds, remaining practically until the end of the rheo- logical test (Figure 1,2). Table 4. Averages (standard deviation) of Compressive Strength of resin cements Cement Compressive Strength RelyX U200 190.8 (17.3)B RelyX ARC 261.3 (16.9)A Bifix SE 176.9 (18.1)C Maxcem Elite 233.5 (19.1)A Means followed by the same capital letter in the column do not present significant statistical difference. (p>0.05). Figure 1. Rheological behavior of the four cements analyzed. EM(MPa) and time in seconds(s) RELYX ARC Maxcem Elite BIFIX RELYX U200 t (s) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 G ’ ( M P a) 7 Borges et al. DISCUSSION The physical and mechanical properties investigated were different among the tested resin cements. The results could be related to the different chemical composition of the materials. Thus, in the present study, the null hypothesis that there are no signif- icant differences in physical-mechanical properties between the conventional resin cement and the self-adhesive resin cements was rejected. High values of the Knoop microhardness test may be related to high conversion degree values and to other factors such as high crosslink density in the polymer matrix, chemical composition and material translucency15.Regarding the microhard- ness test, in the present study, all the cements had a top surface value higher than the base surface value, 24 hours after being made. This superiority from the top to the base was also demonstrated in the study by Arraias et al.16 (2010). This superiority of the top over the base is related to the absorption of light during the photopolymerization process. The top receives higher incidence of light and consequently acquires higher hardness values. In addition, some studies point to a Figure 2. (A) Rheological behavior of RelyX U200 cement. EM(MPa) and time in seconds(s); (B) Rheological behavior of RelyX ARC cement. EM(MPa) and time in seconds(s); (C) Rheological behavior of Bifix SE cement. EM(MPa) and time in seconds(s); (D) Rheological behavior of MaxCem Elite cement. EM(MPa) and time in seconds(s) A 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 t (s) G ’ ( M P a) G’ in MPa Polynomial Fit of RELYX U200 Model Adj. R-Squar RELYX U200 RELYX U200 RELYX U200 Polynomial 0,37102 Intercept B1 B2 Value 3,26047 -0,01626 1,91481E- Standard Erro 0,77816 0,00601 9,64084E-6 B 14 12 10 6 4 2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 t (s) G ’ ( M P a) G’ in MPa Polynomial Fit of RELYX ARC Model Adj. R-Squar RELYX ARC RELYX ARC RELYX ARC Polynomial 0,30907 Intercept B1 B2 Value 5,90068 -0,03228 4,19014E- Standard Erro 1,5112 0,01165 1,86826E-6 8 C 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 t (s) G ’ ( M P a) G’ in MPa Polynomial Fit of BIFIX Model Adj. R-Squar BIFIX BIFIX BIFIX Polynomial 0,1206 Intercept B1 B2 Value 1,37577 -0,00758 1,07108E- Standard Erro 0,48145 0,00371 5,93742E-6 D 30 25 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 t (s) G ’ ( M P a) G’ in MPa Polynomial Fit of Maxcem Elite Model Adj. R-Squar Maxcem Elit Maxcem Elit Maxcem Elit Polynomial 0,13276 Intercept B1 B2 Value 8,51688 -0,0499 6,45674E- Standard Erro 3,4254 0,0264 4,22431E-5 20 0,0 -0,5 2,5 8 Borges et al. reduction of hardness due to the partial absorption of light caused by the thickness and opacity of aesthetic restorative materials, such as porcelain and metal crowns, for example17,18. Diametral tensile strength is a simple method of evaluating tensile forces in cements19,20. In relation to the present study, the diametral tensile test found that the RelyX U200 resin cement presented higher value in relation to the Maxcem Elite resin cement, coinciding with the study by Kim et al.20 (2016). In addition, this difference in behavior can be explained by the varied formulation of the materials, related to the quality of the inorganic polymer phases. Therefore, the resin matrix, inorganic fillers and other components, influence the high mechanical and physical properties of resin cements. Filler particles incorporated in their composition improve their properties, such as elastic modulus, compressive and tensile strength 21,22. The high EM of the cement is related to the transfer of strain from the restoration to the tooth and demonstrates the capacity of strength against elastic deformation23. In the study in question, the cement that presented the highest EM under traction was RelyX ARC. This demonstrates its high mechanical resistance when compared to the other cements analyzed. One of the hypotheses to explain the high mechanical property of RelyX ARC may be due to this cement contains spherical shape filler of different sizes, while other cements have mainly irregular-shaped particles in their composition24. Moreover, the high EM of the conventional Relyx ARC cement may be related to the bonding strength. Higher values of bond strength of conventional cements may be due pretreatment of the dentin. This process provides the creation of a real hybrid layer, raising a bonding performances to dentin25. Compressive strength of cement is an important factor to predict a restorations resis- tance against masticatory forces26. According to Piwowarczy and Lauer27 (2003), the evaluation of the degree of compression has been used as an instrument for analyz- ing the behavior of cement. In their study, the degree of compression of the self-ad- hesive cements varied between 198.3 MPa and 240.6 MPa, a lower value when com- pared with the conventional resin cements that were evaluated, which ranged from 244.2 MPa to 325.8 MPa. The study in question found a similar behavior in relation to the superiority of the conventional cement RelyX ARC. This superiority of conventional cement relative to self-adhesive can be explained by the amount of monomer diluent, which is different in the two types of material21. The composition of the resinous material directly interferes with its viscosity28. It is known that rigid monomers such as BisGMA and UDMA, for example, are fundamen- tal in the formation of more homogeneous and mechanically resistant polymers. Furthermore, due to the high hardness, the density of crosslinks of the polymers increases29. However, in addition to the monomers, the content, shape, size distribu- tion and treatment of silane, inorganic filler, filler particles and other factors interfere in the rheological and mechanical properties of the composite28. The maximum value of the shear storage modulus achieved for each cement was different. Moreover, this method of the rheology test provides information about how a material changes with time. Thus, was observed the highest G’ of the RelyX ARC and Maxcem in relation to the other cements analyzed from the beginning of the test. 9 Borges et al. The increase of G’ means the progression of the cross-linking and entanglements of polymer chains29. This is an important factor, because the lower elastic modulus and resilience of cements may compromise the longevity of brittle restorations, such as all-ceramic restorations30. The viscosity of resin cements has an influence on the handling properties of the material. This material has time-dependent properties that affect the working time, setting time and the quality of the cementation31. Change of viscosity was monitored according to the increasing shear rate and temperature. However, the viscosity of cements varies considerably among the brands though they were nominally of the same class28. The results of this study indicate that RelyX ARC cement showed peaks during the rheometric test. In general, this demonstrates the need for a more cautious handling of this cement, possibly related to its monomeric constitution and viscosity. The monomeric composition of self-adhesive cements differs from conventional ones. They are composed of acid-functional adhesive resinous monomers, which are a type of monomeric methacrylate that has a phosphoric acid or carboxylic acid grouping in their molecular structure29. The presence of those functional monomers may be interfere with the amine initiator and compromises the mechanical proper- ties5. Therefore, the inferiority of some self-adhesive cements analyzed in relation to conventional cement may be related to several factors, such as a low capacity of acid monomer corrosion, inorganic polymer phases, reducing surface demineraliza- tion; incomplete removal of the smear layer, which promotes weak bonding with the resin intermediate layer and mineral buffering effect on the dentin that neutralizes the cement pH32-34 . With the limitations of this study and based on the results obtained, it can be con- cluded that the physical and mechanical properties investigated were different among the tested resin cements. The self-adhesive cements presented poorer mechanical properties than conventional resin cement. The results suggest that the chemical structure and types of monomers employed interfere directly in the mechanical prop- erties of resin cements. Therefore, clinical trials with longer observation periods are required to confirm the data collected from this study. REFERENCES 1. Espíndola-Castro LF, Brito OFF, Araújo LGA, Santos ILA, Monteiro GQDM. In vitro evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of light-curing resin cement: a comparative study. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(01):152-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1705075. 2. Manso AP, Silva NRFA, Bonfante EA, Pegoraro TA, Dias RA, Carvalho RM. Cements and Adhesives for All-Ceramic Restorations. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55(2):311-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.01.011. 3. Watanabe H, Kazama R, Asai T, Kanaya F, Ishizaki H, Fukushima M, et al. Efficiency of dual-cured resin cement polymerization induced by high-intensity LED curing units through ceramic material. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):153-62. doi: 10.2341/13-357-L. 4. Hofmann N, Papsthart G, Hugo B, Klaiber B. Comparison of photo-activation versus chemical or dual-curing of resin-based luting cements regarding flexural strength, modulus and surface hardness.J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28(11):1022-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2001.00809.x. 10 Borges et al. 5. Souza G, Braga RR, Cesar PF, Lopes GC. Correlation between clinical performance and degree of conversion of resin cements: a literature review. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(4):358-68. doi: 10.1590/1678-775720140524. 6. Guimaraes IR, Gómez FM, Goes MFG. Effect of Activation Mode on Flexural Strength and Elasticity Modulusof Dual Cure Resin Cements. Int J Dental Sc. 2016;18(1):61-71. doi: 10.15517/ijds.v0i0.23556. 7. Mendes M, França FMG, Basting RT, Turssi CP, do Amaral FLB. Long-term bond strength of fiber posts cement to dentin with self-adhesive or conventional resin cements. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2017;31(9):977-87. doi: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1238124. 8. Pereira SG, Fulgêncio R, Nunesa TG, Toledano M, Osorio R, Carvalho RC. Effect of curing protocol on the polymerization of dual-cured resin cements. Dent Mater. 2010; 26(7):710-8. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.016. 9. Ferreira-Filho R, Ely C, Amaral R, Rodrigues J, Roulet JF, Cassoni A, et al. Effect of different adhesive systems used for immediate dentin sealing on bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement to dentin. Oper Dent. 2018;43(4):391-7. doi: 10.2341/17-023-l. 10. Aguiar TR, André CB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Arrais CA, Ambrosano GM, Giannini M. Effect of storage times and mechanical load cycling on dentin bond strength of conventional and self-adhesive resin luting cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(5):404-10. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.016. 11. Aguiar TR, de Oliveira M, Arrais CAG, Ambrosano GMB, Rueggeberg F, Giannini M. The effect of photopolymerization on the degree of conversion, polymerization kinetic, biaxial flexure strength, and modulus of self-adhesive resin cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(2):128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.011. 12. Ribeiro CMR, Lopes MWF, Farias ABL, Cabral BLAL, Guerra CMA. Cimentação em prótese: Procedimentos convencionais e adesivos. Int J Dent. 2007 Jun;6(2):58-62. 13. Heintze SD, Ilie N, Hickel R, Reis A, Loguercio A, Rousson V. Laboratory mechanical parameters of compositeresins and their relation to fractures and wear inclinical trials- A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2016;33(3):01-14. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.013. 14. Ellakwaa A, Chob N, Leeb IB. The effect of resin matrix composition on the polymerization shrinkage and rheological properties of experimental dental composites. Dent Mater. 2007;23(10):1229-35. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.004. 15. Mainardi C, Giorgi MC, Lima DA, de Marchi GM, Ambrosano GM, Paulillo LAM, et al. Effect of energy density and delay time on the degree of conversion and Knoop microhardness of a dual resin cement. J Investig Clin Dent. 2015;6(1):53-8. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12075. 16. Arraias CAG, Kasaz AC, Albino LGB, Rodrigues JA, Reis AF. Effect of curing mode on the hardness of dual-cured composite resin core build-up materials. Braz Oral Res. 2010; 24(2):245-9. doi: 10.1590/S1806-83242010000200019. 17. Fonseca RG, Santos JG, Adabo GL. Influence of activation modes on diametral tensile strength of dual-curing resin cements. Braz Oral Res. 2005;19(4):267-71. doi: 10.1590/S1806-83242005000400006. 18. Uctasli S, Hasanreisoglu U, Wilson HJ. The attenuation of radiation by porcelain and its effect on polymerization of resin cements. J Oral Rehabil. 1994;21(5):565-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01171.x. 19. White SN, Yu Z. Compressive and diametral tensile strengths of current adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent. 1993; 69(6):568-72. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90283-T. 20. Kim AR, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Yun MJ, Choi JW, Kwon YH, et al. Effect of activation modes on the compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and microhardness of dual-cured self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater J. 2016;35(2):298-308. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-056. 11 Borges et al. 21. Guedes LLS, Mattos ECG, Zanib IM, Prates LHM, Chain MC. [Mechanical properties evaluation of conventional and self-etching resin cements]. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2008;37(1):85-9. Portuguese. 22. Leprince J, Palin WM, Mullier T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(5):364-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02066.x. 23. Habekost LV, Camacho GB, Demarco FF, Powers JM. Tensile bond strength and flexural modulus of resin cements-influence on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic inlays. Oper Dent. 2007;32(5):488-95. doi: 10.2341/06-140. 24. Aguiar TR, Di Francescantonio M, Bedran-Russo AK, Giannini M .Inorganic composition and filler particles morphology of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements by SEM/EDX. Microsc Res Tech. 2012;75(10):1348-52. doi: 10.1002/jemt.22073. 25. Hitz T, Stawarczyk B, Fischer J, HämmerleaIre CHF, Sailer I. Are self-adhesive resin cements a valid alternative to conventional resin cements? A laboratory study of the long-term bond strength. 2012;28(11):1183-90. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.006. 26. Tavangar MSA, Jafarpur DB, Bagheri RC. Evaluation of compressive strength and sorption/solubility of four luting cements. J Dent Biomater. 2017 Jun;4(2):387-93. 27. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC. Mechanical properties of luting cements after water storage. Oper Dent. 2003 Sep-Oct;28(5):535-42. 28. Lee JH, Um CM, Lee IB. Rheological properties of resin composites according to variations in monomer and filler composition. Dent Mater. 2006;22(6):515-26. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.008. 29. Galvão MNA, Brandt WC, Miranda ME, Vitti RP. [Compressive, flexural and diametral tensile strength of resin cements in different storage times]. J Oral Investig. 2018;7(2):58-68. doi: 10.18256/2238-510X.2018.v7i2.2777. Portuguese. 30. Cook WD, Standish PM. Polymerization kinetics of resin-based restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983:17(2):275-82. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820170206. 31. Furuichi T, Takamizawa T, Tsujimoto A, Miyazaki M, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. Mechanical properties and sliding-impact wear resistance of self-adhesive resin cements. Oper Dent. 2016;41(3): E83-92. doi: 10.2341/15-033-L. 32. Al-Ahdal K, Silikas N, Watts DC. Rheological properties of resin composites according to variations in composition and temperature. Dent Mater. 2014;30(5):517-24. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.005. 33. Valentino TA, Borges GA, Borges LH, Vishal J, Martins LRM, Correr-Sobrinho L. Dual resin cement knoop hardness after diferent activation modes through dental ceramics. Braz Dent J. 2010; 21(2):104-10. doi: 10.1590/S0103-64402010000200003. 34. Costa LA, Carneiro KK, Tanaka A, Lima DM, Bauer J. Evaluation of pH, ultimate tensile strength and micro-shear bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28(1):1-7. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2014.vol28.0055. 35. Mushashe AM, Gonzaga CG, Cunha LF, Furuse AY, Moro A, Correr GM. Effect of Enamel and Dentin Surface Treatment on the Self-Adhesive Resin Cement Bond Strength. Braz Dent J. 2016; 27(5):537-42. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201600445.