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.

The aim of this study was to evaluate (a) the degree of conversion (DC%), (b) film thickness, and (c) the effect of film thickness on DC% in modern light-cured resin composite restoratives [Filtek Universal (F), Clearfil Majesty ES 2 Universal (M), Tetric EvoCeram (T) and Viscalor (V)] used for luting composite onlays before/after preheating. For (a), the luting composites placed at 150 μm film thickness under the onlays (4 mm thickness, 2.9% transmittance) were light-cured for 120 s (3 × 40 s top, buccal, lingual sites) before and after preheating (54 °C/5 min-F,M,T and 65 °C/30 s-V). The DC% was measured at central, middle and side locations along the median in-length axis by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Specimens polymerized without onlays (40 s, top) served as controls. For (b), film thickness was measured employing a modified ISO 4049 standard (37 °C plate temperature, 5 N load) before and after preheating, using a dual-cured resin luting agent as control. For (c), onlays were luted with preheated T at 150 and 350 μm film thickness and light-cured for 2 × (3 × 40) s and 3 × (3 × 40) s, employing directly irradiated specimens (60 s, 120 s) as controls. For (a), significant differences were found in F and T before and after preheating. Before preheating, significant differences were registered between F–T, F–M, F–V and V–T, whereas after they were registered between F–M, F–T and F–V. All these values were significantly lower than the controls. For (b), significantly lower film thickness was recorded after preheating (−16.1–−33.3%, highest in V), with a ranking of F, M > V > T (before) and F, M > T, V (after). All values were significantly higher than the control. For (c), increased exposure improved DC% in the greater spacer group, with the controls providing superior values. It can be concluded that the use of modern highly filled composites as luting agents for low translucency onlays may result in suboptimal polymerization and film thickness, warranting caution.