Received: 12 November 2021 | Revised: 10 June 2023 | Accepted: 17 June 2023

DOI: 10.1002/cre2.761

REVIEW ARTICLE

Resin cement selection for different types of fixed partial

coverage restorations: A narrative systematic review

Safoura Ghodsi1 | Mina Shekarian2 | Mohammad Mostafa Aghamohseni3 |

Sasan Rasaeipour4 | Sarah Arzani5

1
Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research
Institute, Department of Prosthodontics, Abstract
Tehran University of Medical Sciences,
Objective: The aim of this study was to review the selection criteria of resin cements
Tehran, Iran
2
Dental Research Center, Dental Research
for different types of partial coverage restorations (PCRs) and investigate if the type
Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan of restorations or restorative materials affect the type of selected resin cement.
University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Materials and Methods: An electronic search (1991–2023) was performed in
3
Private Practitioner and Researcher,
Tehran, Iran PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases by combinations of related
4
Fellowship in Implant Dentistry, Tehran keywords.
University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Results: A total of 68 articles were included to review the selection criteria based on
5
Child Growth and Development Research
the advantages, disadvantages, indications, and performance of resin cements for
Center, Research Institute for Primordial
Prevention of Non-Communicable Disease, different types of PCRs.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences,
Conclusions: The survival and success of PCRs are largely affected by appropriate
Isfahan, Iran
cement selection. Self‐curing and dual‐curing resin cements have been recom-
Correspondence mended for the cementation of metallic PCRs. The PCRs fabricated from thin,
Sarah Arzani, Research Assistant, Child
Growth and Development Research Center,
translucent, and low‐strength ceramics could be adhesively bonded by light‐cure
Research Institute for Primordial Prevention conventional resin cements. Self‐etching and self‐adhesive cements, especially dual‐
of Non‐Communicable Disease, Isfahan
University of Medical Sciences, Hezar‐Jarib
cure types, are not generally indicated for laminate veneers.
Ave, Isfahan 81746‐73461, Iran.
Email: [email protected] KEYWORDS
ceramics, dental bonding, dental veneer, resin cements, resin bonded ceramic
Funding information
None.

1 | INTRODUCTION The cementation procedure could be discussed in two

different categories: conventional cementation and adhesive luting.
Recent advances in adhesive dentistry, parallel to the rise in esthetic Conventional cementation might be performed by different types of
demand, have increased the indications for partial coverage restorations conventional (e.g., zinc phosphate, glass ionomer) or resin cements
(PCRs) (Morimoto et al., 2016; Thordrup et al., 2006). A PCR (namely, and mainly relies on mechanical bonding. Adhesive luting is
inlay, onlay, laminate veneer, endocrown, etc.) is a type of fixed accomplished by resin cements and benefits from a combination of
restoration that does not cover the whole external tooth surface. This mechanical, micromechanical, chemical, and molecular bonding
conservative indirect restoration restores the tooth's integrity while mechanisms (Kameyama et al., 2015; Sakaguchi et al., 2019). The
preserving the intact remaining tooth structure (Donovan & Chee, 1993). cementation of full‐coverage restorations could be done by both of

Safoura Ghodsi and Sarah Arzani are joint first authors.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cre2 | 1

 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 | EGHODSI ET AL.

these methods; however, PCRs call for adhesive cementation for happens when the resin entangles the exposed collagen fibers (Van
esthetic, strength, and durable retention (Gresnigt et al., 2021). Landuyt et al., 2007). Dentin porosity, hydrophilicity, and the
Available resin cements could be classified as conventional (etch hydroxyapatite composition of the collagen matrix compromise the
and rinse), self‐etch, and self‐adhesive (all‐in‐one) resin cements adhesion in dentin (Migliau, 2017). Cementum, in comparison, is less
based on the application protocols (Figure 1) (Migliau, 2017; hard and more permeable to a variety of materials (Kaneshiro
Pegoraro et al., 2007). Generally, resin cement selection is affected et al., 2008).
by required retention, isolation possibility, esthetic criteria, mechani- The clinical outcomes, performance, and success of PCRs are
cal properties of restorative materials, and the bonding substrate largely affected by appropriate cement selection. Adhesive cements
(dentin or enamel) (Manso et al., 2011; Sunico‐Segarra & comprise a wide range of types, compositions, and characteristics
Segarra, 2015). For enamel, adhesion mainly occurs through the (Figure 1 and Table 1) (Abo‐Hamar et al., 2005; Ashy &
penetration of resin into microporosities created by acid etching (Van Marghalani, 2022; Behr et al., 2009; Borges et al., 2008; Bouillaguet
Landuyt et al., 2007). In the dentin, adhesion is more complex and et al., 2000; Burgess et al., 2010; Carvalho et al., 2004; Casselli &

FIGURE 1 The classification of commercially available resin cements based on the application procedure.
 TABLE 1 Features of different resin cement systems: advantages, disadvantages, and indications.

Advantages Disadvantages Indication

EGHODSI

Based on Self‐cure − No need to consider light penetration for the − Low color stability (Heboyan et al., 2023; Sunico‐ − Metal restorations and PFM (Pegoraro
ET AL.

polymerization restoration (Simon & Darnell, 2012). Segarra & Segarra, 2015). et al., 2007; Simon & Darnell, 2012).
− Limited available shades (Vrochari et al., 2009). − Thick (more than 2 mm) ceramic restorations
(Heboyan et al., 2023; Simon &
Darnell, 2012).
− Opaque (no glass) ceramic materials
(Vrochari et al., 2009).

Light‐cure − Longer working time (D'Arcangelo, De − Dependency on the thickness and opacity of − Low‐thickness (<2 mm), nonopaque (glass‐
Angelis, Vadini, & D'Amario, 2012; Simon & restoration and degree of light penetration containing), metal‐free restorations (Borges
Darnell, 2012) and more color stability (Hackman et al., 2002; Tanoue et al., 2003). et al., 2008; Vargas et al., 2011).
(D'Arcangelo, De Angelis, Vadini, & − Ceramic veneer with less than 1.5 mm
D'Amario, 2012; Pissaia et al., 2015) thickness (Hackman et al., 2002; Hekimoğlu
compared to self‐curing and dual‐curing resin et al., 2000; Pissaia et al., 2015; Tanoue
cements. et al., 2003).
− Wear resistance (Hekimoğlu et al., 2000;
Pissaia et al., 2015).

Dual‐cure − High tensile and bond strength (Kilinc − Difficult to handle (D'Arcangelo, De Angelis, Vadini, − Opaque ceramic materials (Hekimoğlu
et al., 2011; Petrie et al., 2001; Rosenstiel Carluccio, 2012). et al., 2000; Pegoraro et al., 2007; Sadan
et al., 1998). − Restricted working time (D'Arcangelo et al., 2014). et al., 2005).
− High esthetic properties (Kilinc et al., 2011; − Low color stability (Hekimoğlu et al., 2000; Sunico‐ − Indirect endocrowns (Gregor et al., 2014).
Rosenstiel et al., 1998). Segarra & Segarra, 2015). − Metal free restorations (Simon &
− Radiopacity (Kilinc et al., 2011; Rosenstiel − High retentive strength (Pan et al., 2015). Darnell, 2012).
et al., 1998).
− Increased durability (Kilinc et al., 2011;
Rosenstiel et al., 1998).

Based on Conventional − Highest bond strengths to enamel (Simon & − Technique sensitive (Burgess et al., 2010; − Where the predominant remained tooth
generations cements (etch de Rijk, 2006; Sunico‐Segarra & Meerbeek et al., 2005). structure is enamel (Frankenberger
and rinse) Segarra, 2015) and better bonding to indirect − More steps are required compared to other types et al., 2008; Simon & de Rijk, 2006; Sunico‐
composite (D'arcangelo et al., 2009; Viotti (Burgess et al., 2010). Segarra & Segarra, 2015) or highly calcified
et al., 2009) compared to self‐etch or self‐ − Possibility of postoperative sensitivity of the tooth tooth structures (Sunico‐Segarra &
adhesive resin cements. (Christensen, 2002, 2007). Segarra, 2015).
− Adequate bond strengths to dentin (Casselli & − Difficulty in obtaining a hermetic seal (Bouillaguet − Low‐strength ceramic materials
Martins, 2006). et al., 2000). (Frankenberger et al., 2008; Sunico‐Segarra
− Comes in different shades. & Segarra, 2015).
− Reduced microleakage (Swift & Bayne, 1997). − Enamel margins of inlays and onlays
(Frankenberger et al., 2008; Sunico‐Segarra
& Segarra, 2015).
− Ceramic Maryland restorations (Sunico‐
Segarra & Segarra, 2015).

(Continues)
| 3

20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 4

TABLE 1 (Continued)
|

Advantages Disadvantages Indication

Self‐etch cements − Higher bond strengths to dentin compared to − Lower bond strength to enamel than conventional − Crowns and bridges where the predominant
conventional group (Gregor et al., 2014; group (Cekic et al., 2007; Sunico‐Segarra & remaining structure is healthy dentin
Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015) while fewer Segarra, 2015). (Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015).
steps are required (Cekic et al., 2007; − Less shades are available compared to conventional − Compromised retention (Sunico‐Segarra &
Christensen, 2007). group (Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015). Segarra, 2015).
− Low technique sensitivity (Christensen, 2007). − Recommended to be stored in refrigeration away − Inlays and onlays, particularly for teeth with
− Low postoperative sensitivity (Sensat from sunlight (Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015). large defects (Sunico‐Segarra &
et al., 2002; Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015). Segarra, 2015).
− More durability than self‐adhesive system
(Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015).

Self‐adhesive − Lower technique sensitivity and fewer steps − Lower bond strength to enamel compared with − Where the isolation is difficult (Kaneshiro
cements required compared to two other groups (Behr dentine compared to two other groups (Abo‐Hamar et al., 2008; Manso et al., 2011).
Single step et al., 2009; Manso et al., 2011). et al., 2005; Gregor et al., 2014; Manso et al., 2011). − High‐strength (no glass) ceramics (Abo‐
− Low pulp irritation (Piwowarczyk et al., 2012). − Recommended to be stored in refrigeration and Hamar et al., 2005; Manso et al., 2011)
− Low solubility (Piwowarczyk et al., 2012) kept away from sunlight (Sunico‐Segarra & − Metal‐based restorations (Abo‐Hamar
− No pretreatment is required (Carvalho Segarra, 2015). et al., 2005; Manso et al., 2011)
et al., 2004). − Not indicated for veneers (Manso et al., 2011). − Compromised retention (Sunico‐Segarra &
Segarra, 2015)
− Inlays and onlays when there are little tooth
structure (Ashy & Marghalani, 2022; Sunico‐
Segarra & Segarra, 2015).
− When the preparation walls are mainly
dentin without enamel (Abo‐Hamar
et al., 2005; Manso et al., 2011).

Abbreviation: PFM, porcelain fused to metal.

EGHODSI
ET AL.

20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EGHODSI ET AL. | 5

Martins, 2006; Cekic et al., 2007; Christensen, 2002, 2007; D'Ar- The PICOT was defined as: Population: partial coverage
cangelo et al., 2009; D'Arcangelo, De Angelis, Vadini, Carluccio, 2012; restorations, Intervention: cementation, Comparisons: experi-
D'Arcangelo, De Angelis, Vadini, & D'Amario, 2012; D'Arcangelo mental or clinical performance, Outcomes: retention and durabil-
et al., 2014; Frankenberger et al., 2008; Gregor et al., 2014; Hackman ity, Types of publications: RCTs, literature reviews, and experi-
et al., 2002; Heboyan et al., 2023; Hekimoğlu et al., 2000; Kilinc mental studies. The following data were extracted from each
et al., 2011; Manso & Carvalho, 2017; Manso et al., 2011; Meerbeek study: study design, objective, material and method used for
et al., 2005; Pan et al., 2015; Pegoraro et al., 2007; Petrie et al., 2001; PCRs cementation, type of cement used for the restoration, and
Pissaia et al., 2015; Piwowarczyk et al., 2012; Rosenstiel et al., 1998; comparison made between different cements. The number of
Sadan et al., 2005; Sensat et al., 2002; Simon & Darnell, 2012; Simon search results for the selected keywords was 4904 in PubMed,
& de Rijk, 2006; Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015; Swift & 18,400 in Google Scholar, and 5917 in Scopus. After removing
Bayne, 1997; Tanoue et al., 2003; Vargas et al., 2011; Viotti duplicates, 9692 records remained. After title–abstract analysis,
et al., 2009; Vrochari et al., 2009). This review aimed at selecting 432 studies were selected for full‐text review. Finally, 68 studies
resin cements for different types of PCRs and investigated if the type met the requirements for inclusion and exclusion criteria
of restorations or restorative materials had any effect on the type of (Figure 2).
selected resin cement. The null hypothesis was that type and material
have no effect on the type of resin cement selected for the
cementation of PCRs. 3 | RESULTS

The advantages, disadvantages, and indications of resin cements

2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS were among the interesting subjects in the literature. There were
several studies (14 articles) on the characteristics of self‐etch and
This systematic review was conducted according to the preferred self‐adhesive cements (single step); however, fewer studies (five
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) articles) were available on their indications (Table 1). However,
(Liberati et al., 2009). An electronic search was performed in Manso et al. (2011) and Abo‐Abo‐Hamar et al. (2005) had
PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, applying extensively dealt with the indications of these cements. There
related keywords in different combinations in title, abstract, or was no article summarizing the classification of different types of
keywords (1991–2023) (Table 2). The review was developed up to resin cements and commercial brands in the studies reviewed.
May 25, 2023. The inclusion criteria for selecting the articles were Therefore, the present study also dealt with the appropriate
the evaluation of the clinical or experimental performance of resin product for cementation among the available resin cements based
cements, comparison between different resin cements, and evaluat- on the literature reviewed (Figure 1). In addition, 12 catalogs
ing the effect of restorative materials or surface treatments on final were also consulted to compile a table that summarized the
results in PCRs cementation. The included study types were manufacturer's recommendations on the use of resin cements in
randomized clinical trials (RCTs), review articles, and experimental various situations (Table 3) (3M Dental Products Labora-
studies; nonpeer‐reviewed studies were excluded, as well as animal tory, 1998; 3M Oral Care, 2016; Dentsply Sirona, 2016, 2017;
studies, case studies or reports, clinical studies with less than 2 years GC America Inc., 2023; Inside Dentistry, 2019; Ivoclar Vivadent
of follow‐up, or articles published on patient questionnaires or AG, 2018a, 2018b; Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., 2018; PANAVIA
interviews. Studies on other types of restorations (not PCRs) and 21 brochure, (n.d.); PANAVIA F 2.0 brochure, 2012; Panavia SA
those without any evaluation of cement performance were also Cement Universal, 2019).
excluded. Using reference management software (Endnote X9; Improvements in esthetic restorative materials and technologies
Thomson Reuters), duplicated studies were eliminated, and articles have caused an ever‐increasing application of PCRs in routine dental
were selected based on title–abstract and full‐text analyses by three practices. Since dealing with the cementation of PCRs calls for
independent authors (M. S., M. M. A., and S. A.). In cases of familiarity with these restorations, different types of PCRs will be
disagreement, the opinion of the fourth author (S. G.) was considered briefly elaborated, and then the resin cement selection criteria will be
for decision‐making. discussed based on the articles reviewed.

TABLE 2 Systematic review search strategy.

Searching strategy (Conservative restorative treatment OR conservative prosthetic treatment OR partial coverage restoration OR inlay OR onlay
OR dental veneer OR dental laminate OR Maryland bridge OR fixed partial denture OR resin bonded fixed partial denture
OR resin bonded bridge OR adhesively‐retained fixed partial denture OR adhesively‐retained fixed dental prosthesis OR
endocrown OR partial coverage) AND (adhesive retention OR bonding retention OR bonding ability OR dental cement OR
dental adhesive OR resin cement OR luting cement OR adhesive cement OR cement*).
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 | EGHODSI ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Search results flowchart diagram according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses.

3.1 | Inlay, onlay, and vonlay like less fracture resistance, (Costa et al., 2014) polymerization
shrinkage, marginal microleakage, and toxicity resulting from
Inlay is a minimally invasive restoration that restores small to medium incomplete polymerization (Darmani et al., 2007; Durner et al., 2010)
dental lesions, (Felden et al., 1998) onlay is used for medium to have been reported.
extensive defects with cuspal coverage, (Felden et al., 1998; Ferro
et al., 2017) and vonlay is a combination of onlay and ceramic veneer
(McLaren et al., 2015). These PCRs can be made of metal, ceramic 3.2 | Occlusal veneer and overlay
(preferably), or composite materials (McGill & Holmes, 2012).
Ceramics have more surface hardness, wear resistance, (Mörmann Occlusal veneer is an ultrathin, bonded treatment for teeth that are
et al., 2013) biocompatibility, (St. John, 2007) and acceptable worn down or eroded in the occlusal surface, (Magne et al., 2010) and
resistance to compressive loads (Fron Chabouis et al., 2013). overlay covers all the cusps (Felden et al., 1998) for correcting the
However, structural brittleness, (Ansong et al., 2013) susceptibility anatomy of posterior teeth. They have many advantages, such as
to shear stresses, the wear of opposing tooth structure, and time‐ protection of dental structure, recovery of masticatory function and
consuming and costly manufacturing are among the drawbacks (Fron esthetic, (Schlichting et al., 2016; Yazigi et al., 2017) simplicity of
Chabouis et al., 2013; Mörmann et al., 2013). Composite PCRs are cementation, (Carvalho et al., 2014) and being more conservative
less costly, time‐saving, and have acceptable wear resistance (Chang than onlays and full‐coverage crowns (Magne et al., 2010; Schlichting
& Kim, 2014; Fron Chabouis et al., 2013). However, disadvantages et al., 2016).
 TABLE 3 Manufacturers' recommendations for selecting proper resin cement.

Manufacturer cements Classification Indication

EGHODSI

Bisco, Inc. (Inside Choice 2 Light‐cure/conventional Feldspathic/pressed veneer, lithium disilicate veneer, composite reinforced veneer.
ET AL.

Dentistry, 2019)
Theracem Self‐adhesive Feldspathic/pressed inlay and onlay, lithium disilicate inlay and onlay, composite reinforced inlay
and onlay.

Duo‐Link Universal Self‐adhesive Feldspathic/pressed inlay and onlay, lithium disilicate inlay and onlay, composite reinforced inlay
and onlay, metal/PFM Maryland bridge.

eCEMENT L/C Light‐cure Feldspathic/pressed veneer, lithium disilicate veneer.

eCEMENT D/C Dual‐cure Lithium disilicate inlay and onlay.

3M ESPE RelyX Veneer (3M Oral Care, 2016) Light‐cure/conventional Glass ceramic veneer, resin composite veneer, resin nanoceramic veneer.

RelyX ARC (3M Dental Products Dual‐cure/conventional Metal/PFM inlay and onlay (secondary recommendation)/Maryland bridge, porcelain/ceramic/
Laboratory, 1998) composite inlay and onlay.

RelyX Unicem/RelyX Unicem 2 (3M Self‐adhesive Metal/metal based inlay and onlay/Maryland bridge, glass ceramic inlay and onlay, oxide ceramic
Oral Care, 2016) inlay and onlay/Maryland bridge, resin composite inlay and onlay.

RelyX Ultimate (3M Oral Care, 2016) Combination of conventional Metal/metal based inlay and onlay/Maryland bridge, glass ceramic inlay and onlay/veneer, oxide
and self‐etch ceramic inlay and onlay/Maryland bridge, resin composite inlay and onlay/veneer, resin
nanoceramic inlay and onlay/veneer.

Ivoclar Vivadent Variolink 2 (Ivoclar Vivadent Dual‐cure/conventional Metal‐free restorations: veneers/inlays and onlays, IPS e.max glass‐ceramic restorations, IPS
AG, 2018b) empress restorations, composite restorations.

Variolink Esthetic (Ivoclar Vivadent Light‐cure Glass‐ceramics veneers/inlays and onlays/partial crowns, lithium disilicate veneers/occlusal
AG, 2018a) veneers/inlays and onlays/partial crowns, hybrid ceramics and composites veneers/inlays
and onlays.

Light/dual‐cure Same as above, metal/metal‐based Maryland bridges.

SpeedCEM Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent Self‐adhesive Metal/metal‐based inlays and onlays/partial crowns.
AG, 2018a)

Dentsply Sirona Calibra Ceram (Dentsply Sirona, 2017) Light‐cure Veneer.

Calibra Veneer (Dentsply Sirona, 2017) Adhesive cement Inlay and onlay.

Calibra Universal (Dentsply Self‐adhesive Self‐cure Metal, PFM, resin/composite, ceramic and porcelain inlays, onlays, crowns and bridges and
Sirona, 2016) endodontic posts.

Light‐cure Translucent ceramics and composites.

Dual‐cure PFM, zirconia, alumina, opaque ceramics, and composites.

(Continues)
| 7

20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 | EGHODSI ET AL.

3.3 | Endocrown

Metal/PFM/ceramics—low and middle strength/composite/reinforced polymer inlay and onlay.

Metal/PFM/ceramics—low and middle strength/composite/reinforced polymer inlay and onlay,

Metal/metal alloys (e.g., gold or titanium)/metal oxide ceramics/silica‐based ceramics/Hybrid

Posterior adhesion bridge and splint, metal inlay and onlay, silanated porcelain or cured
Endocrown is a single PCR made of acid‐etchable metal ceramic, ceramic,
or composite materials for endodontically treated teeth with large coronal
destruction (Biacchi & Basting, 2012). This monoblock restoration is an
alternative to post and crown with many advantages, such as an easy and
time‐saving preparation procedure, esthetic appeal, resistance to failure,
and conservation of tooth structure (Biacchi et al., 2013; Dietschi

Anterior adhesion and splint, posterior adhesion bridge and splint.

et al., 2008). Endocrown relies on macro‐ and micromechanical retention
(Biacchi & Basting, 2012; Biacchi et al., 2013).
Standard white Posterior adhesion bridge and splint, metal inlay and onlay.

ceramics/composites veneer/inlay and onlay. 3.4 | Laminate veneer

Laminate veneer is a thin indirect ceramic or composite layer bonded to

the tooth's facial surface (da Cunha et al., 2014) to reproduce a natural
appearance with minimal or no preparation (da Cunha et al., 2014; Layton
composite inlay and onlay.

& Walton, 2007). Dental laminate is indicated to restore discolored,

malpositioned, or malcontoured teeth (Alabdulwahhab et al., 2015).
Clinical studies have reported good results for more than 10 years (Layton
& Walton, 2007; Layton et al., 2012).
Inlay and onlay.
Same as above.

The PCR could also be used as a retainer for fixed prostheses to

veneers.
Indication

reduce the extension of tooth preparation. This type of prosthesis

Veneer.

uses metallic or ceramic extensions bonded to adjacent teeth and

could be a Maryland bridge, laminate bridge, or inlay bridge (Edelhoff
et al., 2016; Pahlevan, 2006; Trushkowsky, 2008). These types of
Tooth color

PCR‐retained prostheses have the same considerations for bonding

Opaque

as single‐tooth PCRs; however, the bonding, loading, and occlusal

considerations should be followed more precisely. Considering the
Dual‐cure/self‐etch

higher failure rate, PCR‐retained prostheses could be indicated for

Classification

Self‐adhesive

Self‐adhesive

Self‐adhesive

Self‐adhesive

temporary restorations, small spans, and younger patients with lower

Self‐etch

Self‐etch

bite force (Ibbetson, 2004; Trushkowsky, 2008). These restorations,

generally, are not suggested in deep vertical overlap, long‐span
edentulous space, when the abutments are mobile, or when the
G‐CEM ONE (GC America Inc., 2023)

patient has parafunctional habits (Ibbetson, 2004).

Panavia V5 (Kuraray Noritake Dental

Panavia SA (Panavia SA Cement

G‐CEM (GC America Inc., 2023)

G‐CEM LinkForce (GC America

Panavia F 2.0 (PANAVIA F 2.0

4 | D IS CU SS IO N
Universal, 2019)
brochure, 2012)

PCR is an indirect fixed prosthesis that tries to replace the

Inc., 2023)

Inc., 2018)

demolished tooth structure while preserving more remaining tooth

Abbreviation: PFM, porcelain fused to metal.

structure compared to conventional prostheses (Donovan &

Chee, 1993). This type of restoration aims to recover full mechanical
function, strength, and esthetic while protecting the remaining tooth
structure, improving periodontal health through the accessibility of
margins, simplifying daily maintenance, and reducing gingival and
(Continued)

pulpal irritations (Dallı et al., 2012; Ruiz, 2015). Selecting the

Manufacturer cements

appropriate resin cement is one of the key factors that determines

Kuraray Noritake

the success and longevity of PCR (Santos et al., 2009). Cement in this
restoration provides not only retention but also stability, appearance,
GC America
TABLE 3

and durability. The studied articles demonstrated that the material

type, design, thickness, and opacity of PCR affect the cement type
selection as well as the applied load and dental substrate to be
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EGHODSI ET AL. | 9

bonded (Borges et al., 2008; Hackman et al., 2002; Hekimoğlu strong and stable chemical bond with hydroxyapatite, which
et al., 2000; Tanoue et al., 2003). This highlighted the rejection of the increases the diffusion and adhesion of self‐etch resin cement (Ashy
null hypothesis. In the next paragraphs, the results of the reviewed & Marghalani, 2022; Carvalho et al., 2004; Wang et al., 1991;
articles are summarized based on the queries a dentist might ask in a Watanabe et al., 1994). Self‐adhesive cement does not require dentin
clinical situation for cementing a PCR with resin cement: conditioning (Tay et al., 1995). Although the bond strength of self‐
adhesive resin cements to dentin and enamel has been reported to be
adequate, it is significantly less than conventional or self‐etch types
4.1 | Light, dual, or self‐cure resin cement? (Carvalho et al., 2004; Simon & de Rijk, 2006). Self‐etching and self‐
adhesive cements are particularly indicated for teeth with extensive
Light‐cure resin cements are not suitable for metallic restorations; defects when the predominant exposed structure is dentin. However,
however, they could be, and in fact, they are preferred to be used for even in such a situation, self‐etching cement is preferred because of
metal‐free PCRs (Borges et al., 2008; Vargas et al., 2011). Ceramic PCRs its higher and more durable bond strength (Manso et al., 2011;
are relatively thin, and their appearance is affected by the cement color; Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015).
light‐cured resin cements are generally preferred to provide immediate
final polymerization, esthetic, and strength. Light‐cure cements offer
sufficient working time, facilitate excess cement removal before 4.3 | Does restorative material have any effect?
polymerization, provide better color stability as they do not contain
chemical amine initiators, cure completely in a shorter time, and quickly PCR may be fabricated from metal or esthetic nonmetallic materials
seal the margins compared to self‐ and dual‐cured resins (Simon & (different ceramics and composite resins) (Peutzfeldt et al., 2011). The
Darnell, 2012; Simon & de Rijk, 2006; Tanoue et al., 2003). However, for ceramic materials could be divided into etchable glass ceramic (silica‐
areas with difficult access or where the curing light cannot penetrate (due based) and nonetchable no‐glass (e.g., zirconia) ceramic subgroups
to opacity, thickness, or material type), self‐ or dual‐cure resin cements (Peutzfeldt et al., 2011; Sunico‐Segarra & Segarra, 2015). For the
could be used (Heboyan et al., 2023; Simon & Darnell, 2012). Dual‐cure cementation of metal PCRs, self‐cure cements are highly recommended
cement can be set through chemical reaction alone; however, light curing (see Table 1 for details) and could be used in conventional cementation or
is necessary to reach the maximum degree of polymerization (El‐Badrawy adhesive luting modes (Pegoraro et al., 2007; Simon & Darnell, 2012).
& El‐Mowafy, 1995; Manso et al., 2011). When the thickness of material There is no way for light to penetrate through metal; however,
is more than 1.5 mm in low‐glass ceramics (e.g., lithium disilicate, zirconia considering the probability of light penetration through tooth structure,
lithium silicate, and glass‐infiltrated ceramics), dual‐cure resin cements are a dual‐cure cement might still be efficient with a high degree of
indicated, while translucent ceramics (feldspathic or leucite‐reinforced conversion and good physical properties (Manso et al., 2011). Some resin
ceramics) could be cemented reliably by light‐curable resin cements cement manufacturers suggest special types of their products for each
(Borges et al., 2008; Hackman et al., 2002; Simon & Darnell, 2012). type of PCR (Table 3) (3M Dental Products Laboratory, 1998; 3M Oral
Care, 2016; Dentsply Sirona, 2016, 2017; GC America Inc., 2023; Kuraray
Noritake Dental Inc., 2018; Inside Dentistry, 2019; Ivoclar Vivadent
4.2 | Which type of resin cement is preferred? AG, 2018a, 2018b; PANAVIA 21 brochure, (n.d.); PANAVIA F 2.0
brochure, 2012; Panavia SA Cement Universal, 2019). As an example, a
Conventional resin cement (etch and rinse type) provides predictable dual‐cure adhesive resin cement (RelyX Ultimate, 3M‐Espe) has been
bond strength to enamel with proven long‐term clinical success recommended for metal inlays and onlays, (3M Oral Care, 2016) or a self‐
(Peumans et al., 2005; Simon & de Rijk, 2006; Swift & Bayne, 1997). adhesive resin cement (SpeedCem Plus; Ivoclar Vivadent) has been
The bonding mechanism to dentin is through resin penetration in suggested for metal‐based PCRs by the manufacturer (Ivoclar Vivadent
exposed collagen fibrils (Peumans et al., 2005). This penetration could AG, 2018a). Ceramic restorations could affect light penetration because
provide high bond strength if the steps are followed properly; of their thickness and opacity. Thick (above 1.5–2 mm) and opaque (no‐
however, multiple steps in conventional resin cements and the effect glass) ceramics inhibit light penetration, and therefore, self‐ or dual‐cure
of the water content of dentin might compromise the efficiency of cements could provide more predictable results (Hekimoğlu et al., 2000;
dentin bonding (Burgess et al., 2010; Casselli & Martins, 2006). Self‐ Sadan et al., 2005; Simon & Darnell, 2012). Thin (<1.5 mm) or more
etch resin cement, although having a weaker bond to enamel, translucent materials (high glass ceramic), however, could benefit from
provides higher bond strength in dentin (Cekic et al., 2007; Simon & the advantages of light‐curable, conventional resin cements (Borges
de Rijk, 2006). Self‐etch systems (with a pH of about 2) could not et al., 2008; Vargas et al., 2011). Inlays, onlays, laminate veneers, and
expose the collagen fibers completely for acceptable cement other PCRs fabricated from high‐glass ceramics or composites could take
penetration, and additional ionic bonding and specific functional advantage of adhesive cementation with light‐curable cements in total‐
monomers are needed to enhance their adhesive efficiency (Van etch mode (Borges et al., 2008; Hekimoğlu et al., 2000; Pissaia et al., 2015;
Landuyt et al., 2007; Peumans et al., 2005). Functional monomers are Simon & de Rijk, 2006; Vargas et al., 2011). Dual‐cure resin cements
classified based on their bonding potential; 10‐methacryloyloxydecyl could also be recommended considering their color and opacity varieties,
dihydrogen phosphate (10‐MDP), for instance, could establish a low solubility in oral fluids, high radiopacity, high bond strength to dental
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 | EGHODSI ET AL.

tissues, and increased durability (Kilinc et al., 2011; Pegoraro et al., 2007; Watanabe et al., 1994). Alternative conditioning procedures include the
Rosenstiel et al., 1998). In a 5‐year prospective clinical evaluation, total elimination of contaminating phosphate from the zirconia bonding
etch dual‐cure resin cement showed better clinical performance regarding surface, tribochemical silica coaing, (Amaral et al., 2006; Comino‐
marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation than self‐etch and self‐ Garayoa et al., 2021) or alumina air abrasion (by 50‐µm Al2O3 particles
adhesive resin cements (Eltoukhy et al., 2021). Time‐dependent under 0.1–0.25 MPa pressure), (Raeisosadat et al., 2020) and the
discoloration attributed to tertiary amine content in dual‐cure cements, application of 10‐MDP‐containing resin cements for achieving chemical
(Kilinc et al., 2011; Rosenstiel et al., 1998) however, calls for the bonding (Comino‐Garayoa et al., 2021; Pisani‐Proenca et al., 2006; Wang
application of amine‐free versions. Variolink Esthetic DC (Ivoclar et al., 1991). Sandblasting, (Santos et al., 2009) followed by 10‐MDP
Vivadent), Panavia V5 (Kuraray Noritake Dental), NX3 Nexus (Kerr monomer application, (Atsu et al., 2006) selective infiltration etching,
Dental), and G‐CEM Linkforce (GC Corporation) are among amine‐free (Aboushelib et al., 2007) chemical etching, (Casucci et al., 2009) and laser
dual cure resin cements introduced for use in esthetic veneers when light irradiation, (Inokoshi et al., 2014) have been suggested for zirconia, while
cure cement could not be applied (Atay et al., 2019). sandblasting followed by phosphoric acid etching to clean the surface
(Jivraj et al., 2006) or silane application (Soares et al., 2005) have been
recommended for indirect composite or resin‐based hybrid ceramic
4.4 | How to prepare the surface of the restorations. Murthy et al. (2014) studied the effect of different surface
restoration? treatments on the shear bond strength of resin cements to zirconia. The
surface treatments included sandblasting with 110 or 250 μm alumina at
Adhesion with resin cement calls for surface preparation of 35 psi for 15 s from a distance of about 10 mm, acid etching with 9.6%
restorative materials to provide stable and durable adhesive bonding HF, and laser. The results showed a significant increase in shear bond
(Stewart et al., 2002). Table 4 summarizes the available studies strength after laser treatment. Shimada (2002) researched the microshear
comparing the effect of different surface preparations on the bond bond strength of dual‐cured resin cement with different pretreatments,
strength of resin cements to different surfaces (Casucci et al., 2011; namely sandblasting, etching, and silanization. The silane coupling agent
Chatterjee & Ghosh, 2022; D'Arcangelo et al., 2009; Duarte and acidic primer caused a significant increase in the bond strength of
et al., 2008; Hitz et al., 2012; Murthy et al., 2014; Özdemir castable glass ceramic (Olympas) to cement.
et al., 2019; Pisani‐Proenca et al., 2006; Raeisosadat et al., 2020; The tooth surface also needs preparative procedures to provide
Shimada, 2002; Turp et al., 2016; Upadhyaya et al., 2019). long‐lasting, predictable bonding. Etch‐and‐rinse cement proved to
For metal substructures, sandblasting, or using chemicals, namely provide higher bond strength, especially on enamel surfaces (Simon &
metal primer, tin plating, and silica coating, have been proposed de Rijk, 2006; Swift & Bayne, 1997).
(Denizoglu et al., 2009; Parsa et al., 2003). Sandblasting (by 50‐ µm The present study tried to review the available studies on resin
Al2O3 particles under 0.1–0.6 MPa pressure) is a low‐cost, accessible cement selection in different types of PCRs. However, the main
procedure that improves adhesion and surface wettability by mechani- restriction returns to the limited clinical studies on the long‐term
cally removing debris and increasing surface roughness and porosities durability of bonding provided by resin cements. Further studies on
(Abreu et al., 2009; Al Jabbari et al., 2012; Gurbuz et al., 2008; Lahori new restorative materials and the long‐term durability of bonding by
et al., 2014). Metal primers have active components to aid in the improved versions of cements are encouraged, as are evaluative studies
retention of resin on the metal surface. 10‐MDP proved to increase resin on cement durability in challenging situations, namely structural deficien-
cement bonding to base metal alloys (Taira et al., 2004; Watanabe cies of enamel or dentin (e.g., amelogenesis or dentinogenesis imperfecta),
et al., 2003). However, tin plating and silica coating (e.g., using Rocatec excessive loading situations, and reduced height or width of bonded
Technology) require additional equipment and are considered technique‐ abutments.
sensitive, which reduces their applicability in dental offices (Imbery
et al., 1992; Petrie et al., 2001; Watanabe et al., 2008).
Silica‐based ceramics have shown high bonding strength (up to 5 | CONCLUSION
71.5 MPa) to resin cement, (Kamada et al., 1998; Nagai et al., 2005;
Roulet et al., 1995) provided that correct preparation methods are Based on the results of the literature review, the following
followed. Sandblasting with 50‐µm aluminum oxide particles (at 80 psi) or conclusions can be drawn:
4%–9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching followed by subsequent
silanization have been proposed for surface preparation (Kamada • Self‐ and dual‐cure resin cements have been recommended for the
et al., 1998; Manso et al., 2011; Roulet et al., 1995). The glass phase cementation of metallic PCRs (for conventional cementation or
will be dissolved in HF to create micromechanical retention (Borges adhesive luting).
et al., 2003). Etching with HF and silane application is preferred over air • The PCRs fabricated from thin (<1.5–2 mm), translucent (high‐
abrasion since a higher failure rate and complications have been reported glass), and low‐strength ceramics or composites could be
with the latter on thin veneers (Friedman, 1998; Shaini et al., 1997). adhesively bonded by light‐cure and conventional (etch and rinse)
Etching and silanization do not form a suitable bond for nonglass acid‐ adhesive resin cements. Thick and opaque ceramic restorations
resistant ceramics like zirconia and alumina (Heikkinen et al., 2007; could be cemented by self‐curing or dual‐curing resin cements.
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EGHODSI ET AL. | 11

TABLE 4 Studies' outcomes on different resin cements and surface pretreatments.

References Material type Comparison Conclusions

Shimada (2002) Glass ceramic Microshear bond strength of dual‐cured resin cement Silane coupling agent + acidic primer could
with different pretreatments: sandblasting, significantly increase the bond strength
etching, and silanization. of castable glass ceramic (Olympas) to
cement.

Pisani‐Proenca Lithium disilicate (LDS) The microtensile bond strength of three resin cements Etching and silanization treatments
et al. (2006) glass ceramic (self‐adhesive: RelyX Unicem, resin‐based luting significantly increased resin bonding to
agents: Multilink and Panavia F) to ceramic LDS ceramic, regardless of the resin
submitted to two surface treatments (no cement used.
conditioning, or hydrofluoric acid + silane).

Duarte Composite resin The effect of acid pretreatment on microtensile bond Etching with phosphoric acid significantly
et al. (2008) strengths of self‐adhesive and self‐etch resin increased bond strengths in self‐
cements to enamel. adhesive cement but did not improve
the bond strengths in self‐etching
cement.

D'Arcangelo Composite resin and Microtensile bond strength of resin cements Conventional resin cements provided more
et al. (2009) leucite‐based glass (conventional, self‐etch, and self‐adhesive) for reliable bonding for indirect resin‐based
ceramic dentin bonding. composite restorations. In contrast, self‐
adhesive cement showed the highest
mean bond strength for glass ceramic.

Casucci Zirconia ceramic Effect of different surface treatments (airborne Bond strength values were significantly
et al. (2011) particle abrasion (S), selective infiltration etching higher by SIE and ST treatments
(SIE), hot etching solution (ST), and no treatment) compared to S and control group.
on microtensile bond strength to resin cement.

Hitz et al. (2012) Silica‐based glass Shear bond strengths in six self‐adhesive resin Considering the bond strength, not all self‐
ceramic cements and a conventional resin cement to adhesive resin cements could be a valid
dentin. alternative to conventional resin
cements.

Murthy Zirconia ceramic Effect of different surface treatments on shear bond Laser treatment increased the shear bond
et al. (2014) strength of resin cements: sandblasting with strength value significantly.
110 μm alumina, sandblasting with 250 μm
alumina, acid etching with 9.6% HF, and laser.

Turp et al. (2016) Zirconia ceramic Effect of different surface treatments on microtensile 10‐MDP containing resin cements and
bond strength of resin cements: air‐particle primer increased the bond strength of
abrasion, air‐particle abrasion and zirconia primer, resin cement to zirconia.
air‐particle abrasion and 10‐MDP containing
primer.

Upadhyaya LDS Shear bond strength of ceramic to dentin by Conventional resin cement produced
et al. (2019) conventional, self‑etch, and self‑adhesive resin significantly higher bond strength.
cements.

Özdemir Zirconia The shear bond strength of dual‐ and self‐cure resin Co‐Jet + bonding showed the highest
et al. (2019) cements with different surface treatments (Co‐Jet; values, and Nd:YAG laser showed the
Nd:YAG laser; Er:YAG laser; Nd‐YAG laser + silane; lowest. MDP‐based silane + bonding
Er‐YAG laser + silane; Co‐Jet + bonding agent; increased the shear bond strength in
Nd:YAG laser + silane + bonding agent; Er:YAG each group.
laser + silane + bonding agent).
Dual‐cure cement showed significantly
higher bond strength compared to self‐
cure cement.

Raeisosadat Base metal alloy Effect of different surface treatments on the shear Er:YAG laser treatment provided the
et al. (2020) (nickel–chrome alloy) bond strength of resin cement: sandblasting, highest shear bond strength between
Er:YAG laser, Er:YAG laser after sandblasting, MKZ metal alloy and resin cement.
metal primer after sandblasting.

(Continues)
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 | EGHODSI ET AL.

TABLE 4 (Continued)

References Material type Comparison Conclusions

Chatterjee and Zirconia ceramic Effect of different surface pretreatments (mechanical, The ideal zirconia preparation protocol was
Ghosh (2022) chemical, mechanochemical) on the shear bond using a combination of sandblasting
strength of resin cements (self‑adhesive cements, with 50 μm Al2O3 particles and self‐
10‑MDP containing cements, bis‑GMA cements). adhesive resin cement containing
10‑MDP.

Abbreviations: 10‐MDP, 10‐methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; Er:YAG, erbium‐doped yttrium aluminum garnet; Nd:YAG, neodymium‐doped
yttrium aluminum garnet.

• Self‐etching and self‐adhesive cements, especially those in dual‐ Alabdulwahhab, B. M., AlShethry, M. A., AlMoneef, M. A.,
cure types, are not indicated for laminate veneers. AlManie, M. A., AlMaziad, M. M., & AlOkla, M. S. (2015). The
effect of dental adhesive on final color match of direct laminate
veneer (DLV): In vitro study: Effect of dental adhesive on color
A U T H O R C O N TR I B U T I O N S match of DLV. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 27(5),
Conceptualization: Safoura Ghodsi, Sarah Arzani, Mina Shekarian, 307–313.
Mohammad Mostafa Aghamohs, Sasan Rasaeipour. Data curation: Amaral, R., Özcan, M., Bottino, M. A., & Valandro, L. F. (2006).
Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated
Safoura Ghodsi, Sarah Arzani, Mina Shekarian, Mohammad Mostafa
zirconia‐reinforced ceramic: The effect of surface conditioning.
Aghamohs. Formal analysis, methodology, and project administration: Dental Materials, 22(3), 283–290.
Sarah Arzani and Safoura Ghodsi. Investigation: Sarah Arzani and Sasan Ansong, R., Flinn, B., Chung, K.‐H., Mancl, L., Ishibe, M., & Raigrodski, A. J.
Rasaeipour. Supervision: Safoura Ghodsi, Sarah Arzani, and Sasan (2013). Fracture toughness of heat‐pressed and layered ceramics.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 109(4), 234–240.
Rasaeipour.
Ashy, L. M., & Marghalani, H. (2022). Internal and marginal adaptation of
adhesive resin cements used for luting inlay restorations: An in vitro
CO NFL I CT OF INTERES T S T ATEME NT micro‐CT study. Materials, 15(17), 6161.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Atay, A., Palazli, Z., Gürdal, I., & Üşümez, A. (2019). Color change of
different dual‐cure resin cements after thermocycling. Journal of
Dental Sciences, 21(2), 53–62.
D A TA A V A I L A B I L I T Y S T A T E M E N T
Atsu, S. S., Kilicarslan, M. A., Kucukesmen, H. C., & Aka, P. S. (2006). Effect
Data sharing is not applicable since it was a review article and no new of zirconium‐oxide ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength
data were created or analyzed in this study. to adhesive resin. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 95(6), 430–436.
Behr, M., Rosentritt, M., Wimmer, J., Lang, R., Kolbeck, C., Bürgers, R., &
Handel, G. (2009). Self‐adhesive resin cement versus zinc phosphate
ORCID
luting material: A prospective clinical trial begun 2003. Dental
Safoura Ghodsi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3559-5991 Materials, 25(5), 601–604.
Sarah Arzani http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0014-471X Biacchi, G., & Basting, R. (2012). Comparison of fracture strength of
endocrowns and glass fiber post‐retained conventional crowns.
Operative Dentistry, 37(2), 130–136.
REFERENCES
Biacchi, G. R., Mello, B., & Basting, R. T. (2013). The endocrown: An
3M Dental Products Laboratory. (1998). RelyX ARC adhesive resin cement alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars.
technical product profile. USA. http://ktrdental.com/RelyX%20ARC Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 25(6), 383–390.
%20Technical%20Product%20Profile.pdf Borges, G. A., Agarwal, P., Miranzi, B. A. S., Platt, J. A., Valentino, T. A., &
3M Oral Care. (2016). Cement selection made easy [brochure]. Canada. Santos, P. H. (2008). Influence of different ceramics on resin cement
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1223645O/relyx-cement- knoop hardness number. Operative Dentistry, 33(6), 622–628.
selector-flyer.pdf;Cement Borges, G. A., Sophr, A. M., De Goes, M. F., Sobrinho, L. C., &
Abo‐Hamar, S. E., Hiller, K.‐A., Jung, H., Federlin, M., Friedl, K.‐H., & Chan, D. C. N. (2003). Effect of etching and airborne particle
Schmalz, G. (2005). Bond strength of a new universal self‐adhesive abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ceramics. The
resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clinical Oral Investigations, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 89(5), 479–488.
9(3), 161–167. Bouillaguet, S., Duroux, B., Ciucchi, B., & Sano, H. (2000). Ability of
Aboushelib, M. N., Kleverlaan, C. J., & Feilzer, A. J. (2007). Selective adhesive systems to seal dentin surfaces: An in vitro study. The
infiltration‐etching technique for a strong and durable bond of resin Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2(3), 201–208.
cements to zirconia based materials. The Journal of Prosthetic Burgess, J. O., Ghuman, T., Cakir, D., & Swift, Jr. E. J. (2010). Self‐adhesive
Dentistry, 98(5), 379–388. resin cements. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 22(6),
Abreu, A., Loza, M. A., Elias, A., Mukhopad‐hyay, S., Looney, S., & 412–419.
Rueggeberg, F. A. (2009). Tensile bond strength of an adhesive resin Carvalho, A. O., Bruzi, G., Giannini, M., & Magne, P. (2014). Fatigue
cement to different alloys having various surface treatments. The resistance of CAD/CAM complete crowns with a simplified
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 101(2), 107–118. cementation process. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 111(4),
Al Jabbari, Y. S., Zinelis, S., & Eliades, G. (2012). Effect of sandblasting 310–317.
conditions on alumina retention in representative dental alloys. Carvalho, R. M., Pegoraro, T. A., Tay, F. R., Pegoraro, L. F., Silva, N. R. F. A.,
Dental Materials Journal, 31(2), 249–255. & Pashley, D. H. (2004). Adhesive permeability affects coupling of
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EGHODSI ET AL. | 13

resin cements that utilise self‐etching primers to dentine. Journal of Dentsply Sirona. (2016). Calibra universal self‐adhesive resin cement.
Dentistry, 32(1), 55–65. https://www.dentsplysirona.com/content/dam/dentsply/pim/
Casselli, D. S., & Martins, L. R. (2006). Postoperative sensitivity in Class I manufacturer/Restorative/Indirect_Restoration/Permanent_
composite resin restorations in vivo. The Journal of Adhesive Cements/Self_Adhesive_Cements/Calibra_Universal_Self_
Dentistry, 8(1), 53–58. Adhesive_Resin_Cement/Calibra%20Universal%20507401.pdf
Casucci, A., Monticelli, F., Goracci, C., Mazzitelli, C., Cantoro, A., Dentsply Sirona. (2017). Calibra cements the simple choice for easy cleanup.
Papacchini, F., & Ferrari, M. (2011). Effect of surface pre‐ http://downloads.ivoclarvivadent.com/zoolu_website/media/
treatments on the zirconia ceramic‐resin cement microtensile bond document/40045/Luting+materials
strength. Dental Materials, 27(10), 1024–1030. Dietschi, D., Duc, O., Krejci, I., & Sadan, A. (2008). Biomechanical
Casucci, A., Osorio, E., Osorio, R., Monticelli, F., Toledano, M., considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A
Mazzitelli, C., & Ferrari, M. (2009). Influence of different surface systematic review of the literature, Part II (evaluation of fatigue
treatments on surface zirconia frameworks. Journal of Dentistry, behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence International,
37(11), 891–897. 39(2), 117–129.
Cekic, I., Ergun, G., Lassila, L. V., & Vallittu, P. K. (2007). Ceramic‐dentin Donovan, T. E., & Chee, W. W. L. (1993). Conservative indirect
bonding: effect of adhesive systems and light‐curing units. The restorations for posterior teeth. Dental Clinics of North America,
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 9(1), 17–23. 37(3), 433–443.
Chang, H. S., & Kim, J. W. (2014). Early hardness and shear bond strength Duarte, S., Botta, A. C., Meire, M., & Sadan, A. (2008). Microtensile bond
of dual‐cure resin cement light cured through resin overlays with strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self‐
different dentin‐layer thicknesses. Operative Dentistry, 39(4), adhesive and self‐etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel.
398–406. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 100(3), 203–210.
Chatterjee, N., & Ghosh, A. (2022). Current scenario on adhesion to Durner, J., Spahl, W., Zaspel, J., Schweikl, H., Hickel, R., & Reichl, F.‐X.
zirconia; surface pretreatments and resin cements: A systematic (2010). Eluted substances from unpolymerized and polymerized
review. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 22(1), 13–20. dental restorative materials and their Nernst partition coefficient.
Christensen, G. J. (2002). Solving the frustrations of crown cementation. Dental Materials, 26(1), 91–99.
The Journal of the American Dental Association, 133(8), 1121–1122. Edelhoff, D., Liebermann, A., Beuer, F., Stimmelmayr, M., & Güth, J.‐F.
Christensen, G. J. (2007). Should resin cements be used for every (2016). Minimally invasive treatment options in fixed prosthodon-
cementation? The Journal of the American Dental Association, 138(6), tics. Quintessence International, 47(3), 207–216.
817–819. El‐Badrawy, W. A., & El‐Mowafy, O. M. (1995). Chemical versus dual
Comino‐Garayoa, R., Peláez, J., Tobar, C., Rodríguez, V., & Suárez, M. J. curing of resin inlay cements. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,
(2021). Adhesion to zirconia: A systematic review of surface 73(6), 515–524.
pretreatments and resin cements. Materials, 14(11), 2751. Eltoukhy, R. I., Elkaffas, A. A., Ali, A. I., & Mahmoud, S. H. (2021). Indirect
Costa, A., Xavier, T., Noritomi, P., Saavedra, G., & Borges, A. (2014). The resin composite inlays cemented with a self‐adhesive, self‐etch or a
influence of elastic modulus of inlay materials on stress distribution conventional resin cement luting agent: A 5 years prospective
and fracture of premolars. Operative Dentistry, 39(4), E160–E170. clinical evaluation. Journal of Dentistry, 112, 103740.
daCunha, L. F., Pedroche, L. O., Gonzaga, C. C., & Furuse, A. Y. (2014). Felden, A., Schmalz, G., Federlin, M., & Hiller, K.‐A. (1998). Retrospective
Esthetic, occlusal, and periodontal rehabilitation of anterior teeth clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and
with minimum thickness porcelain laminate veneers. The Journal of partial ceramic crowns: Results up to 7 years. Clinical Oral
Prosthetic Dentistry, 112(6), 1315–1318. Investigations, 2(4), 161–167.
D'Arcangelo, C., De Angelis, F., D'Amario, M., Zazzeroni, S., Ciampoli, C., & Ferro, K. J., Morgano, S. M., Driscoll, C. F., Freilich, M. A.,
Caputi, S. (2009). The influence of luting systems on the microtensile Guckes, A. D., & Knoernschild, K. L. (2017). The glossary of
bond strength of dentin to indirect resin‐based composite and prosthodontic terms: Ninth edition. The Journal of Prosthetic
ceramic restorations. Operative Dentistry, 34(3), 328–336. Dentistry, 117(5S), e1–e105.
D'Arcangelo, C., De Angelis, F., Vadini, M., Carluccio, F., Vitalone, L. M., & Frankenberger, R., Lohbauer, U., Schaible, R., Nikolaenko, S., &
D'Amario, M. (2012). Influence of curing time, overlay material and Naumann, M. (2008). Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: Marginal
thickness on three light‐curing composites used for luting indirect quality of self‐etch and etch‐and‐rinse adhesives versus self‐etch
composite restorations. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 14(4), cements. Dental Materials, 24(2), 185–191.
377–384. Friedman, M. J. (1998). A 15‐year review of porcelain veneer failure: A
D'Arcangelo, C., De Angelis, F., Vadini, M., & D'Amario, M. (2012). Clinical clinician's observations. Compendium of Continuing Education in
evaluation on porcelain laminate veneers bonded with light‐cured Dentistry, 19(6), 625–628.
composite: Results up to 7 years. Clinical Oral Investigations, 16(4), Fron Chabouis, H., Smail Faugeron, V., & Attal, J.‐P. (2013). Clinical
1071–1079. efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: a systematic
D'Arcangelo, C., Zarow, M., De Angelis, F., Vadini, M., Paolantonio, M., review. Dental Materials, 29(12), 1209–1218.
Giannoni, M., & D'Amario, M. (2014). Five‐year retrospective clinical GC America Inc. (2023). Product catalog. GC America Inc. http://www.gc.
study of indirect composite restorations luted with a light‐cured dental/america/sites/america.gc.dental/files/documents/2023-04/
composite in posterior teeth. Clinical Oral Investigations, 18(2), gca-catalog-2023.pdf
615–624. Gregor, L., Bouillaguet, S., Onisor, I., Ardu, S., Krejci, I., & Rocca, G. T.
Dallı, M., Çolak, H., & Mustafa Hamidi, M. (2012). Minimal intervention (2014). Microhardness of light‐and dual‐polymerizable luting resins
concept: A new paradigm for operative dentistry. Journal of polymerized through 7.5‐mm‐thick endocrowns. The Journal of
Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, 3(3), 167–175. Prosthetic Dentistry, 112(4), 942–948.
Darmani, H., Al‐Hiyasat, A. S., & Milhem, M. M. (2007). Cytotoxicity of Gresnigt, M. M. M., Braeckmans, A., van der Made, S. A. M., & Naves, L. Z.
dental composites and their leached components. Quintessence (2021). Partial anterior indirect restorations in cases with dentin
International, 38(9), 789–795. exposure. The International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry, 16(4),
Denizoglu, S., Hanyaloglu, C., & Aksakal, B. (2009). Tensile bond strength 554–69.
of composite luting cements to metal alloys after various surface Gurbuz, A., Inan, O., Kaplan, R., & Ozturk, A. N. (2008). Effect of
treatments. Indian Journal of Dental Research, 20(2), 174–179. airborne‑particle abrasion on retentive strength in overtapered fixed
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 | EGHODSI ET AL.

prosthodontic restorations. Quintessence International, 39(3), Layton, D., & Walton, T. (2007). An up to 16‐year prospective study of
134–138. 304 porcelain veneers. The International Journal of Prosthodontics,
Hackman, S. T., Pohjola, R. M., & Rueggeberg, F. A. (2002). Depths of cure 20(4), 389–396.
and effect of shade using pulse‐delay and continuous exposure Layton, D. M., Clarke, M., & Walton, T. R. (2012). A systematic review and
photo‐curing techniques. Operative Dentistry, 27(6), 593–599. meta‐analysis of the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5
Heboyan, A., Vardanyan, A., Karobari, M. I., Marya, A., Avagyan, T., and 10 years. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 25(6),
Tebyaniyan, H., Mustafa, M., Rokaya, D., & Avetisyan, A. (2023). 590–603.
Dental luting cements: An updated comprehensive review. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C.,
Molecules, 28(4), 1619. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., &
Heikkinen, T. T., Lassila, L. V. J., Matinlinna, J. P., & Vallittu, P. K. (2007). Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic
Effect of operating air pressure on tribochemical silica‐coating. Acta reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care
Odontologica Scandinavica, 65(4), 241–248. interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6,
Hekimoğlu, C., Anil, N., & Etikan, I. (2000). Effect of accelerated aging on e1000100.
the color stability of cemented laminate veneers. The International Magne, P., Schlichting, L. H., Maia, H. P., & Baratieri, L. N. (2010). In vitro
Journal of Prosthodontics, 13(1), 29–33. fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic
Hitz, T., Stawarczyk, B., Fischer, J., Hämmerle, C. H. F., & Sailer, I. (2012). posterior occlusal veneers. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 104(3),
Are self‐adhesive resin cements a valid alternative to conventional 149–157.
resin cements? A laboratory study of the long‐term bond strength. Manso, A. P., & Carvalho, R. M. (2017). Dental cements for luting and
Dental Materials, 28(11), 1183–1190. bonding restorations. Dental Clinics of North America, 61(4), 821–34.
Ibbetson, R. (2004). Clinical considerations for adhesive bridgework. Manso, A. P., Silva, N. R. F. A., Bonfante, E. A., Pegoraro, T. A., Dias, R. A.,
Dental Update, 31(5), 254–265. & Carvalho, R. M. (2011). Cements and adhesives for all‐ceramic
Imbery, T. A., Burgess, J. O., & Naylor, W. P. (1992). Tensile strength of restorations. Dental Clinics of North America, 55(2), 311–332.
three resin cements following two alloy surface treatments. The McGill, S., & Holmes, J. (2012). The 7/8 crown: A lost art. Operative
International Journal of Prosthodontics, 5(1), 59–67. Dentistry, 37(5), 453–457.
Inokoshi, M., De Munck, J., Minakuchi, S., & Van Meerbeek, B. (2014). McLaren, E. A., Figueira, J., & Goldstein, R. E. (2015). Vonlays: A
Meta‐analysis of bonding effectiveness to zirconia ceramics. Journal conservative esthetic alternative to full‐coverage crowns.
of Dental Research, 93(4), 329–334. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, 36(4), 282–284.
Inside Dentistry. (2019). Success is in the details: Cementation from prep to Meerbeek, B. V., Landuyt, K. V., Munck, J. D., Hashimoto, M.,
post‐op. AEGIS Dental Network. https://www.bisco.com/assets/1/ Peumans, M., Lambrechts, P., Yoshida, Y., Inoue, S., & Suzuki, K.
7/Cements_ebook.pdf (2005). Technique‐sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dental
Ivoclar Vivadent AG. (2018a). The right cement for every clinical situation. Materials Journal, 24(1), 1–13.
Schaan/Liechtenstein. http://downloads.ivoclarvivadent.com/zoolu- Migliau, G. (2017). Classification review of dental adhesive systems: From
website/media/document/40045/Luting+materials the IV generation to the universal type. Annali di Stomatologia, 8(1),
Ivoclar Vivadent AG. (2018b). Variolink II esthetics and experience lead to 1–17.
success. Schaan/Liechtenstein. https://www.miradenture.com/wp- Morimoto, S., Rebello de Sampaio, F. B. W., Braga, M. M., Sesma, N., &
content/uploads/2018/07/VariolinkII.pdf Özcan, M. (2016). Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays,
Jivraj, S. A., Kim, T. H., & Donovan, T. E. (2006). Selection of luting agents and overlays: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of
part 1. Journal of the California Dental Association, 34(2), 149–160. Dental Research, 95(9), 985–994.
Kamada, K., Yoshida, K., & Atsuta, M. (1998). Effect of ceramic surface Mörmann, W. H., Stawarczyk, B., Ender, A., Sener, B., Attin, T., & Mehl, A.
treatments on the bond of four resin luting agents to a ceramic (2013). Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative
material. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 79(5), 508–513. CAD/CAM materials: Two‐body wear, gloss retention, roughness
Kameyama, A., Bonroy, K., Elsen, C., Lührs, A.‐K., Suyama, Y., and Martens hardness. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of
Peumans, M., Van Meerbeek, B., & De Munck, J. (2015). Luting Biomedical Materials, 20, 113–125.
of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: Direct composite versus dual‐cure Murthy, V., Manoharan, B., & Livingstone, D. (2014). Effect of four surface
luting cement. Bio‐Medical Materials and Engineering, 25(3), treatment methods on the shear bond strength of resin cement to
279–288. zirconia ceramics—A comparative in vitro study. Journal of Clinical
Kaneshiro, A. V., Imazato, S., Ebisu, S., Tanaka, S., Tanaka, Y., & Sano, H. and Diagnostic Research, 8(9), Zc65–Zc68.
(2008). Effects of a self‐etching resin coating system to prevent Nagai, T., Kawamoto, Y., Kakehashi, Y., & Matsumura, H. (2005). Adhesive
demineralization of root surfaces. Dental Materials, 24(10), bonding of a lithium disilicate ceramic material with resin‐based
1420–1427. luting agents. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 32, 598–605.
Kilinc, E., Antonson, S. A., Hardigan, P. C., & Kesercioglu, A. (2011). Resin Özdemir, H., Yanikoğlu, N., & Sağsöz, N. (2019). Effect of MDP‐based
cement color stability and its influence on the final shade of all‐ silane and different surface conditioner methods on bonding of resin
ceramics. Journal of Dentistry, 39(1), e30–e36. cements to zirconium framework. Journal of Prosthodontics, 28(1),
Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc. (2018). Product catalog ceramics. Hatter- 79–84.
sheim am Main/Germany. https://www.kuraraynoritake.eu/pub/ Pahlevan, A. (2006). A new design for anterior laminate fixed‐partial
media/pdfs/product-catalog-chairside-en.pdf dentures; PTU type I. Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of
Lahori, M., Nagrath, R., Sisodia, S., & Dagar, P. (2014). The effect of Medical Sciences, 3(1), 40–44.
surface treatments on the bond strength of a nonprecious Pan, Y. H., Lin, T. M., Liu, P. R., & Ramp, L. C. (2015). Effect of luting agents
alloy–ceramic interface: An invitro study. The Journal of Indian on retention of dental implant‐supported prostheses. Journal of Oral
Prosthodontic Society, 14(2), 151–155. Implantology, 41(5), 596–599.
Van Landuyt, K. L., Snauwaert, J., De Munck, J., Peumans, M., Yoshida, Y., PANAVIA 21 [brochure]. (n.d.). Kuraray Noritake. Japan. https://www.
Poitevin, A., Coutinho, E., Suzuki, K., Lambrechts, P., & kuraraynoritake.eu/pub/media/pdfs/panavia-21-brochure-en.pdf
Van Meerbeek, B. (2007). Systematic review of the chemical PANAVIA F 2.0 [brochure]. (2012). Kuraray Noritake Dental. Tokyo, Japan.
composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials, 28(26), https://www.kuraraynoritake.com/world/product/cements/pdf/
3757–3785. panavia_f20_brochure.pdf
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EGHODSI ET AL. | 15

Panavia SA Cement Universal. (2019). Noritake Dental Inc. Kuraray evaluation over a period of 6.5 years. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation,
Europe GmbH. Hattersheim am Main/Germany. https://js-davis.co. 24(8), 553–559.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20038_1-Panavia-SA-Cement- Shimada, Y. (2002). Micro‐shear bond strength of dual‐cured resin cement
Universal-brochure-HR.pdf. to glass ceramics. Dental Materials, 18(5), 380–388.
Parsa, R. Z., Goldstein, G. R., Barrack, G. M., & LeGeros, R. Z. (2003). An in Simon, J. F., & Darnell, L. A. (2012). Considerations for proper selection of
vitro comparison of tensile bond strengths of noble and base metal dental cements. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry,
alloys to enamel. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 90(2), 175–183. 33(1), 28–30.
Pegoraro, T. A., daSilva, N. R. F. A., & Carvalho, R. M. (2007). Cements for Simon, J. F., & de Rijk, W. G. (2006). Dental cements. Inside Dentistry, 2(2),
use in esthetic dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America, 51(2), 42–47.
453–471. Soares, C. J., Soares, P. V., Pereira, J. C., & Fonseca, R. B. (2005). Surface
Petrie, C. S., Eick, J. D., Williams, K., & Spencer, P. (2001). A comparison of treatment protocols in the cementation process of ceramic and
3 alloy surface treatments for resin‐bonded prostheses. Journal of laboratory processed composite restorations. A literature review.
Prosthodontics, 10(4), 217–223. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 17(4), 224–235.
Peumans, M., Kanumilli, P., de Munck, J., van Landuyt, K., Lambrechts, P., St. John, K. R. (2007). Biocompatibility of dental materials. Dental Clinics of
& van Meerbeek, B. (2005). Clinical effectiveness of contemporary North America, 51(3), 747–760.
adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials. Dental Stewart, G. P., Jain, P., & Hodges, J. (2002). Shear bond strength of resin
Materials, 21(9), 864–881. cements to both ceramic and dentin. The Journal of Prosthetic
Peutzfeldt, A., Sahafi, A., & Flury, S. (2011). Bonding of restorative Dentistry, 88(3), 277–284.
materials to dentin with various luting agents. Operative Dentistry, Sunico‐Segarra, M., & Segarra, A. (2015). A practical clinical guide to resin
36(3), 266–273. cement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43842-8
Pisani‐Proenca, J., Erhardt, M. C. G., Valandro, L. F., Gutierrez‐Aceves, G., Swift Jr. EJ, & Bayne, S. C. (1997). Shear bond strength of a new one‐
Bolanos‐Carmona, M. V., Del castillo‐Salmeron, R., & Bottino, M. A. bottle dentin adhesive. American Journal of Dentistry, 10(4),
(2006). Influence of ceramic surface conditioning and resin cements 184–188.
on microtensile bond strength to a glass ceramic. The Journal of Taira, Y., Yanagida, H., Matsumura, H., & Atsuta, M. (2004). Effects of a
Prosthetic Dentistry, 96, 412–417. metal etchant and two primers on resin bonding durability to
Pissaia, J. F., Correr, G. M., Gonzaga, C. C., & Cunha, L. F. (2015). Influence titanium. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 112(1), 95–100.
of shade, curing mode, and aging on the color stability of resin Tanoue, N., Koishi, Y., Atsuta, M., & Matsumura, H. (2003). Properties of
cements. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, 14(4), 272–275. dual‐curable luting composites polymerized with single and dual
Piwowarczyk, A., Schick, K., & Lauer, H.‐C. (2012). Metal–ceramic crowns curing modes. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 30(10), 1015–1021.
cemented with two luting agents: Short‐term results of a prospec- Tay, F. R., Gwinnett, A. J., Pang, K. M., & Wei, S. H. Y. (1995). Variability in
tive clinical study. Clinical Oral Investigations, 16(3), 917–922. microleakage observed in a total‐etch wet‐bonding technique under
Raeisosadat, F., Ghoveizi, R., Eskandarion, S., Beyabanaki, E., & different handling conditions. Journal of Dental Research, 74(5),
Tavakolizadeh, S. (2020). Influence of different surface treatments 1168–1178.
on the shear bond strength of resin cement to base metal alloys. Thordrup, M., Isidor, F., & Hörsted‐Bindslev, P. (2006). A prospective
Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences, 11(1), 45–49. clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays:
Rosenstiel, S. F., Land, M. F., & Crispin, B. J. (1998). Dental luting agents: A Ten‐year results. Quintessence International, 37(2), 139–144.
review of the current literature. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Trushkowsky, R. (2008). A transformation‐toughened polycryst‐a lline
80(3), 280–301. ceramic posterior inlay/onlay fixed partial denture. Inside Dentistry,
Roulet, J. F., Söderholm, K. J. M., & Longmate, J. (1995). Effects of 4(5), 108–111.
treatment and storage conditions on ceramic/composite bond Turp, V., Akgüngör, G., Şen, D., & Tuncelli, B. (2016). Influence of MDP
strength. Journal of Dental Research, 74(1), 381–387. content in different resin cements and zirconia primers on ceramic‐
Ruiz, J. L. (2015). Avoiding subgingival margins for healthier dentistry: resin cement bond strength. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Dental
Using a supragingival preparation protocol. Dentistry Today, 34(10), Sciences, 22(1), 7–13.
82. Upadhyaya, V., Arora, A., Singhal, J., Kapur, S., & Sehgal, M. (2019).
Sadan, A., Blatz, M. B., & Lang, B. (2005). Clinical considerations for Comparative analysis of shear bond strength of lithium disilicate
densely sintered alumina and zirconia restorations: Part 2. The samples cemented using different resin cement systems: An in vitro
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 25(4), study. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 19(3), 240–247.
343–349. Vargas, M. A., Bergeron, C., & Diaz‐Arnold, A. (2011). Cementing all‐
Sakaguchi, R. L., Ferracane, J., & Powers, J. M. (2019). Craig's restorative ceramic restorations. The Journal of the American Dental Association,
dental materials. Elsevier. 142(Suppl. 2), 20S–24SS.
Santos, Jr. G. C., Santos, M. J., & Rizkalla, A. S. (2009). Adhesive Viotti, R. G., Kasaz, A., Pena, C. E., Alexandre, R. S., Arrais, C. A., &
cementation of etchable ceramic esthetic restorations. Journal Reis, A. F. (2009). Microtensile bond strength of new self‐adhesive
(Canadian Dental Association), 75(5), 379–384. luting agents and conventional multistep systems. The Journal of
Schlichting, L. H., Resende, T. H., Reis, K. R., & Magne, P. (2016). Simplified Prosthetic Dentistry, 102(5), 306–312.
treatment of severe dental erosion with ultrathin CAD‐CAM Vrochari, A. D., Eliades, G., Hellwig, E., & Wrbas, K.‐T. (2009). Curing
composite occlusal veneers and anterior bilaminar veneers. The efficiency of four self‐etching, self‐adhesive resin cements. Dental
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 116(4), 474–482. Materials, 25(9), 1104–1108.
Sensat, M. L., Brackett, W. W., Meinberg, T. A., & Beatty, M. W. (2002). Wang, T., Nikaido, T., & Nakabayashi, N. (1991). Photocure bonding agent
Clinical evaluation of two adhesive composite cements for the containing phosporic methacrylate. Dental Materials, 7(1), 59–62.
suppression of dentinal cold sensitivity. The Journal of Prosthetic Watanabe, I., Hotta, M., Watanabe, E., Atsuta, M., & Okabe, T. (2003).
Dentistry, 88(1), 50–53. Shear bond strengths of laboratory‑cured prosthetic composite
Shaini, F. J., Shortall, A. C. C., & Marquis, P. M. (1997). Clinical to primed metal surfaces. American Journal of Dentistry, 16(6),
performance of porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective 401–403.
 20574347, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cre2.761 by Cochrane Colombia, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 | EGHODSI ET AL.

Watanabe, I., Nakabayashi, N., & Pashley, D. H. (1994). Bonding to ground

dentin by a phenyl‐P selfetching primer. Journal of Dental Research, How to cite this article: Ghodsi, S., Arzani, S.,
73(6), 1212–1220.
Shekarian, M., Aghamohseni, M. M., & Rasaeipour, S.
Watanabe, T., Ino, S., Okada, S., Katsumata, Y., Hamano, N., Hojo, S.,
(2023). Resin cement selection for different types
Teranaka, T., & Toyoda, M. (2008). Influence of simplified silica
coating method on the bonding strength of resin cement to dental of fixed partial coverage restorations: A narrative
alloy. Dental Materials Journal, 27(1), 16–20. systematic review. Clinical and Experimental
Yazigi, C., Kern, M., & Chaar, M. S. (2017). Influence of various bonding Dental Research, 1–16.
techniques on the fracture strength of thin CAD/CAM‐fabricated
https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.761
occlusal glass‐ceramic veneers. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of
Biomedical Materials, 75, 504–511.