粘接界面处理对玻璃离子水门汀与复合树脂粘接强度的影响

目的 比较4种粘接剂对2种不同类型玻璃离子水门汀与复合树脂界面间粘接强度的影响.方法 选取传统型高强度玻璃离子FujiⅨ(F9)和树脂改良型玻璃离子FujiⅡLC(F2LC)为研究对象,将100个样本随机分为10组,每组10个样本,在样本中央制备窝洞后,随机选取5组样本,窝洞内置入F9,另外5组置入F2LC.样本界面分别采取不处理和4种不同类型的粘接剂,Clearfil SE Bond(SEB)、Clearfil S3 Bond(S3B)、Optibond Versa(OBV)及Single Bond 2(SB2)处理后,分别测定各组样本的剪切粘接强度.结果 OBV处理组的F9样本组获得最大的剪切粘结强度,未进行界面处理的F9样本组剪切粘结强度最小,其差异具有显著统计学意义.使用粘接剂处理后各组的粘接强度均显著增高.结论 粘接剂处理样本界面后显著提高玻璃离子与复合树脂间的粘接强度.自酸蚀粘接剂OBV使玻璃离子与复合树脂界面获得最大的粘接强度.     

牙本质粘接剂粘接强度与界面形态的研究

目的:采用一种新的界面处理方法,对不同类型牙本质粘接剂的粘接强度与界面形态进行研究.方法:选取人无龋磨牙,暴露咬合面牙本质,分别使用3 种粘接剂(Single Bond,SB;Clearfil SE Bond,SE;Clearfil S3 Bond,S3)制备粘接样本.粘接样本切割成粘接界面约为0.9 mm×0.9 mm的柱形小条,用微拉伸测力仪测试粘接强度(n=15).另外将粘接样本依次用6 mol/L盐酸、5%次氯酸钠和0.08 mg/ml透明质酸酶溶液处理,扫描电镜观察粘接界面形态.结果: 3 种粘接剂的牙本质粘接强度分别为:SB (35.50±6.40) MPa,SE (45.06±5.29) MPa,S3 (30.46±3.82) MPa,三者之间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).SB粘接界面的树脂突长约9～12 μm,部分样本出现混合层易与粘接剂层分离.SE形成的树脂突长约9～14 μm,无混合层与粘接剂层分离现象.使用S3后,树脂突稀疏,长约4～7 μm,混合层与粘接剂层结合紧密.结论:牙本质粘接剂的粘接界面形态与粘接强度存在一定的相关性.     

硬化牙本质粘接界面的激光扫描共聚焦显微镜观察

目的使用激光扫描共聚焦显微镜（CLSM）观察牙颈部硬化牙本质在全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘接系统形成粘接界面的超微结构。方法选用12颗因牙周病拔除的具有典型楔状缺损的上颌前磨牙为实验组;12颗新鲜拔除的无龋人上颌前磨牙为对照组,制备人造楔状缺损。使用Single Bond （SB,全酸蚀单瓶系统）、Clearfil SE Bond（CB,自酸蚀底胶系统）、Xeno Ⅲ（XB,自酸蚀一步粘接系统）粘接系统处理牙面,以罗丹明B异硫氰酸盐为荧光素,使用CLSM观察粘接界面的混合层与树脂突的微观结构。结果双因素方差分析表明粘接剂种类、牙本质类型对粘接界面树脂突长度、混合层厚度有显著影响（P<0.05）。无论是正常牙本质还是硬化牙本质,全酸蚀粘接剂（SB）产生的树脂突长度、混合层厚度均大于自酸蚀粘接剂（CB、XB）,并且其差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）;而CB和XB间树脂突长度、混合层厚度相差不多,二者间无统计学意义。结论硬化牙本质相对于正常牙本质形成的混合层较薄或者没有,树脂突短、少。全酸蚀粘接系统与自酸蚀粘接系统作用同类型的牙本质上,自酸蚀比全酸蚀形成的混合层薄,树脂突短。     

4种粘接剂对牙本质粘接强度的体外评价

目的比较4种粘接剂对牙本质的粘接强度,并观察粘接界面,评估其抗力性能。方法采用Prime & BondNT（PBNT）、Tetric N-Bond（TNB）、Clearfil SE Bond（CSEB）、G Bond（GB）4种粘接剂粘接树脂于离体下颌第三磨牙的咬合面和近中面,近中面进行剪切力实验,记录断裂峰值;咬合面部分进行微拉伸粘接强度（TBS）测定,扫描电镜观察粘接界面形态。结果在剪切力实验中,PBNT与TNB的抗剪切粘接强度（SBS）最大,两者间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。PBNT的SBS高于CSEB与GB（P<0.05）;TNB的SBS高于GB（P<0.05）,与CSEB的强度差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。与剪切力实验结果一致,PBNT和TNB的TBS高于CSEB和GB（P<0.05）。扫描电镜下,PBNT和TNB的树脂突比较细长,粘接层较厚;CSEB树脂突短小,GB树脂突更加稀疏。结论全酸蚀粘接剂的粘接强度较自酸蚀粘接剂高,一步法自酸蚀粘接剂强度最低;粘接剂的界面形态与粘接强度存在一定程度的关联性。     

人工唾液条件下3种自酸蚀粘接剂与牙本质粘接耐久性研究

目的　探讨Single bond™ Universal等3种不同类型自酸蚀粘接剂与牙本质的粘接强度和耐久性。方法　选取 2016年5—7月解放军总医院口腔颌面外科拔除的24颗新鲜人离体第三磨牙,随机分为3组,每组8颗,分别选用Clearfil SE Bond（SE组）、G-Bond plus（GBp组）、Single bond™ Universal（SBU组）等3种自酸蚀粘接剂与新鲜牙本质粘接并制备试件。每组挑选出完整试件160个,再分为两个亚组（各80个试件）,分别在即刻与人工唾液浸泡6个月后行微拉伸粘接强度实验,体视显微镜下观察试件断裂类型。 结果　SE组、GBp组、SBU组即刻牙本质粘接强度分别为（55.70 ± 11.07）、（52.85 ± 7.54）和（62.82 ± 8.70）MPa,其中SBU组高于SE组和GBp组,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。人工唾液保存6个月后,SE组、GBp组、SBU组牙本质粘接强度分别为（13.51 ± 4.99）、（43.53 ± 6.82）和（49.13 ± 6.58）MPa,3组之间差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。6个月时粘接界面观察,SE组断裂模式均为粘接界面断裂;GBp组16个试件为牙本质内聚断裂,4个试件为复合树脂内聚断裂;SBU组28个试件为牙本质内聚断裂,8个试件为复合树脂内聚断裂。 结论　Single bond™ Universal即刻牙本质粘接强度和人工唾液老化后6个月粘接强度均显著高于Clearfil SE Bond、G-Bond plus;Single bond™ Universal粘接强度大,稳定耐久,可提供良好的粘接效果。     

参与不同牙本质粘接界面退变过程中基质金属蛋白酶种类的研究

目的 研究参与两种粘接剂形成的牙本质粘接界面退变过程中基质金属蛋白酶（ MMPs）的种类。方法 制备Single Bond 2和Clearfil S3 Bond微剪切粘接试件,无菌人工唾液中分别浸泡 0、6个月测试粘接强度,场发射扫描电镜（FE-SEM）观察界面断裂模式。制备4 mm×3 mm×1 mm牙本质片,分为对照组、Single Bond 2组和Clearfil S3 Bond组,无菌人工唾液浸泡 0、6个月后,液相芯片技术测定各组 MMP-1、-2、-3、-8、-9含量。结果 老化 6个月后,各组粘接强度显著下降。与对照组相比,老化过程中不同粘接剂组 MMP-1、-3含量无明显变化,Single Bond 2组 MMP-2、-8、-9含量显著降低,Clearfil S3 Bond组MMP-8、-9含量显著降低。结论 老化6个月后两种粘接试件均发生粘接界面退变,牙本质源MMP-2、-8、-9的含量显著降低,提示这些MMPs可能参与了牙本质粘接界面的退变。     

模拟髓室压力对两种自酸蚀粘接剂牙本质粘接强度的影响

目的评价模拟髓室压力对两种自酸蚀粘接剂粘接强度的影响。方法 32颗第三磨牙通过随机数字表法分为Clearfil SE Bond和Teric N-Bond 2组,每组根据是否模拟髓室压力及时间差异再随机分为4个亚组。在模拟髓室压力和未模拟髓室压力两种条件下,涂布粘接剂后制作微拉伸试件,分别经37℃纯水储存24 h和30 d后测试微拉伸粘接强度;用扫描电镜观察断裂界面。结果 Clearfil SE Bond粘接剂组,未模拟髓室压力时24 h和30 d组的牙本质粘接强度分别为（46.20±10.84）MPa和（44.49±16.32）MPa,两组差异无统计学意义（P=0.729）;模拟髓室压力时24 h和30 d组的牙本质粘接强度分别为（37.56±19.42）MPa和（38.12±14.14）MPa,两组差异无统计学意义（P=0.926）。而Teric N-Bond粘接剂组,模拟髓室压力时24 h和30 d组的牙本质粘接强度分别为（9.54±6.62）MPa和（3.57±4.82）MPa,两组差异有统计学意义（P=0.007）;未模拟髓室压力时24 h和30 d组的牙本质粘接强度分别为（24.71±12.34）MPa和（18.17±7.67）MPa,两组差异无统计学意义（P=0.084）。两种粘接剂相对应的4个亚组两两比较,Clearfil SE Bond组粘接强度均大于Teric N-Bond组,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.001）。结论模拟髓室压力对单步自酸蚀粘接剂的影响较大。     

氯已定预处理对两步法自酸蚀粘接剂牙本质粘接界面稳定性的影响

目的：探讨氯已定预处理对两步法自酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质粘接界面稳定性的影响.方法：40颗离体人磨牙沿垂直于牙长轴的方向切割,暴露冠中部牙本质作为粘接面,牙本质试件随机分为两组,一组在粘接处理前涂布0.2％氯已定为实验组,一组无预处理为对照组,两组经两步法自酸蚀粘接剂SE Bond处理后,堆积复合树脂制备成粘接试件.每组随机抽取2个试件借助微拉曼光谱仪分析粘接剂的双键转化率,剩余的18个试件随机分为两个亚组,分别于即刻和冷热循环5000次后检测微拉伸粘接强度和界面的纳米渗漏情况.结果：0.2％氯已定预处理对SE Bond的树脂双键转化率无显著性影响（P＞0.05）.即刻测试时,对照组和实验组间的微拉伸粘接强度和纳米渗漏差异无统计学意义（PP ＞0.05）.冷热循环老化处理后,实验组的微拉伸粘接强度显著高于对照组,纳米渗漏程度显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）.结论：0.2％氯已定预处理不会干扰SE Bond的树脂聚合,且可提高其与牙本质粘接界面的稳定性.     

丙酮基和酒精-水基牙本质粘接系统粘接强度比较及粘接界面观察

目的:比较丙酮基和酒精-水基两种不同溶剂类型的全酸蚀牙本质粘接系统粘接强度和粘接界面的微观形态。方法:选择24颗正畸治疗拔除的健康前磨牙,去除合面釉质层,随机分两组,每组选用一种 “两步法”全酸蚀牙本质粘接系统:以丙酮为溶剂的Prime & Bond NT(PB组)和以酒精和水为溶剂的Single Bond 2(SB2)组,粘接后进行微拉伸力检测。以扫描电镜(SEM)和激光共聚焦扫描电镜(LCSM)观察两种牙本质粘接系统的粘接界面。结果:粘接强度PB组(29.49±4.01) MPa,SB2组微拉伸粘接强度为,SB2组为(30.03±4.33) MPa,无统计学差异。两种牙本质粘接系统均可充分渗入脱矿牙本质表层的胶原纤维网和牙本质小管内,形成混合层和树脂突,SB组混合层薄而均匀,树脂突长。结论:不同溶剂类型的两组牙本质粘接系统微拉伸粘接强度无差异,全酸蚀牙本质粘接系统在湿粘接状态下可以对牙本质形成良好的渗透。     

一步法自酸蚀粘接剂微拉伸粘接强度的研究

目的评价一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质微拉伸粘接强度，观察并分析样本断裂类型。方法选择新拔除的人无龋下颌第三磨牙12颗，分别用3种一步法、1种两步法的白酸蚀粘接剂进行牙本质粘接。用微拉伸测力仪测试粘接强度，并用体视显微镜和扫描电镜观察样本断裂类型。结果3种一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的微拉伸强度分别为：材料A（Adper Prompt）（23．36±2．55）MPa；材料B（Clearfil S^3 Bond）（30．46±3．82）MPa；材料C（Xenon Ⅲ）（34．59±3．46）MPa；1种两步法自酸蚀粘接剂材料D（Clearfil SE Bond）的微拉伸粘接强度为（45．06±5．29）MPa。材料D微拉伸粘接强度最高，与其他3组相比，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。样本断裂均发生于粘接界面，未观察到复合树脂或牙本质内聚破坏。结论一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质粘接强度低于两步法白酸蚀粘接剂，但多数仍可满足临床对树脂粘接强度的要求。     

Microtensile bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin with or without application of an intermediate flowable resin layer

This study evaluated the effect of flowable composite resin application on the microtensile bond strength (muTBS) of adhesive systems to dentin. Occlusal surfaces of human third molars were ground to obtain flat dentin surfaces. The crown of each tooth was sectioned occluso-gingivally into four quarters with a water-cooled diamond saw. One of the following adhesive systems was applied to dentin surface in each quarter of the same tooth, following manufacturers' instructions: Scotchbond Multipurpose, Single Bond Adper Prompt and Clearfil SE Bond. Experimental and control groups received the same treatment, except for the fact that a layer of flowable composite (Filtek Flow) was placed and light-cured on top of the adhesive layer in the specimens of the experimental groups. Resin composite (Filtek Z250) crown buildups were then made on the bonded surfaces and incrementally light-cured for 20 s. The restored teeth were stored in water at 37 masculineC for 24 h. Each tooth quarter was serially cut in a longitudinal direction in order to obtain several bonded sticks (0.9-mm(2) in cross-section). Maximal microtensile stress (in MPa) at failure was recorded using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% significance level. Placement of a low-viscosity resin to the hybridized dentin increased the muTBS for all tested adhesive systems. However, such increase was significant only for Clearfil SE Bond (p<0.05). When the restorations were placed without low-viscosity resin, Clearfil SE Bond presented higher muTBS than Adper Prompt (p<0.05). For the groups treated with flowable composite, Clearfil SE Bond produced the highest muTBS means to dentin. In conclusion, the effect of the addition of an intermediate flowable composite layer on muTBS to dentin was material-dependent and resulted in an increased adhesion for all tested materials, though with significance only for Clearfil SE Bond.     

3种树脂水门汀对CAD/CAM全瓷-牙本质剪切强度的比较

目的:评价3种树脂水门汀对CAD/CAM全瓷-牙本质剪切强度的影响。方法:选取新鲜拔除的人磨牙30颗,制备牙本质黏结面,随机分为3组(n=10),分别选用全酸蚀树脂水门汀RelyX ARC、自酸蚀树脂水门汀Clearfil DCBond和自黏结树脂水门汀RelyX Unicem对CAD/CAM硅酸锂玻璃全瓷进行黏结,测试3种树脂水门汀对CAD/CAM全瓷-牙本质的剪切强度,并通过立体显微镜观察牙本质的黏结界面。采用SPSS11.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:RelyX ARC组的剪切强度为(15.90±6.15)MPa,Clearfil DC Bond组的剪切强度为(14.41±5.07)MPa,而RelyXUnicem组的剪切强度为(23.29±7.39)MPa,与前2组相比有显著性差异(P<0.05)。立体显微镜观察显示,3组黏结断面均位于牙本质与树脂水门汀之间。结论:自酸蚀树脂水门汀及自黏结树脂水门汀与CAD/CAM硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷修复体的黏结强度不低于传统全酸蚀树脂水门汀,且临床操作简便,为临床全瓷黏结提供了更多便利与选择。     

Evaluation of microtensile bond strength of total-etch, self-etch, and glass ionomer adhesive to human dentin: an in vitro study.

AIM: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of Single Bond, AdheSE, and Fuji Bond LC to human dentin. Fifteen non-carious third molars were selected for the study. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups of five teeth each. Each group was given a different bonding treatment. Group I was treated with Single Bond (3M, ESPE), group II with AdheSE (Ivoclar, Vivadent), and group III was treated with Fuji Bond LC (GC America). A T-band metal matrix was placed and composite resin bonded on to the tooth surface using appropriate bonding agents. The composite resin was packed in increments and light cured. Each tooth was sectioned to obtain 1 mm x 1 mm beams of dentin-resin samples. Tensile bond testing was done using a universal testing machine (Instron) at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. RESULTS: The mean bond strength of Single Bond (35.5 MPa) was significantly higher than that of AdheSE (32.8 MPa) and Fuji Bond LC (32.6 MPa). The difference between the microtensile bond strength values of AdheSE and Fuji Bond LC was statistically insignificant. INFERENCE: Though the bond strength of AdheSE and Fuji Bond LC was above 30 MPa, it was less than that of Single Bond as evaluated by testing of microtensile bond strength.     

Bonding amalgam to enamel: shear bond strength and SEM morphology

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Most studies of amalgam bonding have used dentin as the substrate. There is little data on bonding to enamel. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the shear bond strength of amalgam to enamel with the use of 3 resin cements, 1 resin-modified glass ionomer lining cement, and 2 dentin bonding agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty bovine teeth were trimmed to expose a flat enamel surface and randomly assigned to 6 test groups of 10 specimens each. A single-plane lap shear test assembly was used. The enamel surfaces were treated with either Amalgambond Plus (group I, control), 2 coats of Amalgambond Plus (group II), light-polymerized Panavia F followed by an additional coat of autopolymerized Panavia F (group III), light-polymerized Fuji Lining LC followed by an additional coat of acid-base set Fuji Lining LC (group IV), Clearfil SE Bond followed by an additional coat of autopolymerized Panavia F (group V), or Single Bond followed by an additional coat of autopolymerized RelyX ARC (group VI). Freshly mixed amalgam was condensed against the treated enamel surfaces. Shear bond strengths for each group were compared with 1-way ANOVA and post hoc Duncan's test (P=.05). Fracture modes were examined visually. SEM observations of the fractured enamel surfaces, interfacial morphology, and conditioned enamel surfaces for each group were performed. RESULTS: Low bond strengths of 1.2 and 1.6 MPa were obtained in groups VI and I, respectively. The dual application of materials in all remaining groups resulted in higher bond strengths that ranged from 14.2 to 15.7 MPa. SEM illustrations revealed various degrees of intermingling between the adhesive material and amalgam. The conditioned enamel surfaces were morphologically varied according to conditioning solution. CONCLUSION: In this in vitro study, with the exception of group VI, the dual application of either adhesive resins or resin-modified glass ionomer resulted in satisfactory bond strengths of amalgam to enamel (up to 16 MPa).     

Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effectiveness of three different dentin adhesive systems on the adhesion of resin composite to both dentin and enamel. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The flat dentin and enamel surfaces of 60 extracted human molar teeth were exposed by wet grinding with 600-grit silicon carbide paper. One total-etch self-priming adhesive system (Prime & Bond NT), one two-step self-etching primer adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond), and one "all-in-one" self-etching adhesive system (Prompt L-Pop) were evaluated. Each bonding system was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions and followed by composite (TPH Spectrum) application. Twenty-four hours after bonding, the teeth were subjected to shear testing. There were 10 replicates for each group. RESULTS: Prompt L-Pop exhibited significantly higher bond strength values to enamel (27 +/- 4.2 MPa) than all other groups. There were no statistically significant differences for shear bond strength to dentin among adhesives. Prompt L-Pop showed the statistically significantly higher bond strength to enamel than dentin. There were no statistically significant differences between the enamel and dentin bond strengths of Clearfil SE Bond and Prime & Bond NT. CONCLUSIONS: The self-etching adhesive systems produced high bond strengths to human coronal dentin and ground enamel surfaces. These materials seem to be very promising for further clinical applications, and the results are very encouraging for the clinical success of these simplified adhesive systems. The self-etching adhesive systems produced even better bond strengths to both enamel and dentin than conventional total-etch systems, especially the "all-in-one" system, which produced the highest bond strength to enamel.     

Adhesion of resin composite core materials to dentin

PURPOSE: This study determined (1) the effect of polymerization mode of resin composite core materials and dental adhesives on the bond strength to dentin, and (2) if dental adhesives perform as well to dentin etched with phosphoric acid as to dentin etched with self-etching primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human third molars were sectioned 2 mm from the highest pulp horn and polished. Three core materials (Fluorocore [dual cured], Core Paste [self-cured], and Clearfil Photo Core [light cured]) and two adhesives (Prime & Bond NT Dual Cure and Clearfil SE Bond [light cured]) were bonded to dentin using two dentin etching conditions. After storage, specimens were debonded in microtension and bond strengths were calculated. Scanning electron micrographs of representative bonding interfaces were analyzed. RESULTS: Analysis showed differences among core materials, adhesives, and etching conditions. Among core materials, dual-cured Fluorocore had the highest bond strengths. There were incompatibilities between self-cured Core Paste and Prime & Bond NT in both etched (0 MPa) and nonetched (3.0 MPa) dentin. Among adhesives, in most cases Clearfil SE Bond had higher bond strengths than Prime & Bond NT and bond strengths were higher to self-etched than to phosphoric acid-etched dentin. Scanning electron micrographs did not show a relationship between resin tags and bond strengths. CONCLUSION: There were incompatibilities between a self-cured core material and a dual-cured adhesive. All other combinations of core materials and adhesives produced strong in vitro bond strengths both in the self-etched and phosphoric acid-etched conditions.     

Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect polymerization contraction stress may have on bond durability. METHODS: Bonding effectiveness was assessed by micro-tensile bond strength testing (muTBS) and electron microscopy. The muTBS to flat dentin surfaces and in standardized cavities was determined (this after 1 day as well as 1 year water storage). Six adhesives representing all current classes were applied: two etch-and-rinse (OptiBond FL, Kerr; Scotchbond 1, 3M ESPE), two self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray; Adper Prompt, 3M ESPE) and two glass-ionomer (Fuji Bond LC, GC; Reactmer, Shofu) adhesives. RESULTS: The conventional 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond FL bonded most effectively to dentin, and appeared insensitive to polymerization shrinkage stress and water degradation. The 2-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE Bond most closely approached this superior bonding effectiveness and only slightly lost bond strength after 1-year water exposure. The 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Scotchbond 1 and the 'strong' 1-step self-etch adhesive Adper Prompt appeared very sensitive to cavity configuration and water-aging effects. The 2-step resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive Fuji Bond LC only suffered from shrinkage stress, but not from 1-year water-exposure. Remarkable also is the apparent repairability of the 'mild' 1-step glass-ionomer adhesive Reactmer when stored for 1 year in water, in spite of the very low 1-day muTBS. SIGNIFICANCE: Simplified bonding procedures do not necessarily imply improved bonding performance, especially in the long term.     

Effects of adhesive liner and provisional cement on the bond strength of nickel/chrome/beryllium alloy cemented to dentin.

OBJECTIVE: Treating teeth with adhesive agents before placing a provisional restoration can prevent tooth sensitivity. This study evaluated the bond strength of resin cements to dentin treated with 2 adhesive agents and 2 provisional cements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Extracted human molars were prepared by exposing dentin and were treated with either Prime & Bond NT or Clearfil SE Bond. After a simulated impression technique, the teeth were provisionalized with either a eugenol or noneugenol temporary cement. Teeth were cleaned for bonding by either mechanical removal of the cement or use of an acid conditioner. Panavia F and Calibra resin cements were used to cement nickel/chrome/beryllium alloy to the tooth surfaces, and the specimens were debonded. Mean shear bond strengths for each group were calculated. RESULTS: Mean shear bond strengths ranged from 26.6 +/- 5.8 MPa for Calibra bonded to dentin treated with Prime & Bond NT, a noneugenol cement, and mechanically cleaned, to 10.6 +/- 4.4 MPa for Panavia F bonded to unlined (no adhesive) dentin treated with a eugenol cement and mechanically cleaned. Of the 14 groups tested, significant differences were observed related to the adhesives and resin cements. Both temporary cements reduced the bond to dentin not treated with a resin adhesive. Use of an acid conditioner for cleaning the temporary cement also reduced bond strengths in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a dentin adhesive before provisionalization may prevent the temporary cement from affecting the bond of the final resin cement to the tooth. For the products used in this study, use of phosphoric acid to clean the tooth surface is not recommended.