Experimental analysis shows differences in curing capacity of veneer luting agents and touch-cure primers, highlighting areas for standardization.
Light attenuation and excess handling of light-cured luting agents create problems in bonding veneer restorations. The aim of the present study was to assess the curing capacity of light-cured veneer luting agents (VLA) [Choice 2 (CH2), G-Cem Veneer (GCV), Panavia LC Veneer (PNV), PermaCem LC Veneer (PMS), and Variolink Esthetic LC (VEV)] under lithium disilicate veneers, in the presence or absence of touch-cure primers (Adhese Universal Bond DC for VEV, G Premio Bond + DCA Activator for GCV, and V5 Tooth Primer V5 for PNV) and to evaluate material setting under two tack-curing irradiation modes (contact, distant). The methods used were ATR–FTIR spectroscopy and Vickers hardness (VHN) tests (n = 5/product and test). According to the results, all materials cured under the ceramic demonstrated significantly lower DC% from the controls, with a ranking of VEV, CH2 > GCV, PMS, PNV. The primers improved DC% by 4–13% only in the veneer groups. Tack-curing in contact mode demonstrated conversion and hardness values ranging from 37% to 78% and 31% to 57% of the controls respectively, corresponding to a vitreous state. For the distant mode, very low conversion values were found (0–7% of the controls), with untraceable indentations. It can be concluded that low translucency veneers reduce conversion of VLAs, which can be improved by using touch-cure activators. Tack-curing, as instructed, creates vitrified materials, resulting in difficult removal of set excess, which implies the need for better standardization of the procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Petropoulou et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: