Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cements to Artificially Created Carious Dentin

Abstract

The mean microtensile bond strengths of glass ionomer cements to carious dentin were significantly lower than to sound dentin. SUMMARYIn this laboratory study, the microtensile bond strengths of a conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and a resin modified glass ionomer cement (CRMGIC) to artificially created carious dentin and sound dentin were compared, and the ultrastructural morphology of the fractured interface was examined with a low-vacuum scanning electron microscope (SEM). The specimens were divided into 4 groups: 1) a conventional GIC (Ketac-Fil Plus Aplicap) placed on sound dentin; 2) a conventional GIC placed on artificially created carious dentin; 3) an RMGIC (Photac-Fil Aplicap) placed on sound dentin and 4) an RMGIC placed on artificially created carious dentin. Artificial carious lesions were created using a chemical demineralizing solution of 0.1 M/L lactic acid and 0.2% carbopol. GIC buildups were made on the dentin surfaces according to the manufacturer's directions. After storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, the teeth were sectioned vertically into 1 x 1 x 8-mm beams for the microtensile bond strength test. The microtensile bond strength of each specimen was measured, and failure mode was determined using an optical microscope (40x). The fractured surfaces were further examined with SEM. Twoway analysis of variance showed that the mean microtensile bond strengths of a GIC and an RMGIC to carious dentin were significantly lower than those to sound dentin, and the mean microtensile bond strengths of Photac-Fil to both sound and carious dentin were significantly higher than those of Ketac-Fil Plus. Chi-square tests indicated that there was a significant difference in failure mode between the sound dentin and carious dentin groups. In sound dentin groups, cohesive failure in GIC was pre-

Microtensile Bond Strength of Gic and Rmgic Restored to Carious Teeth Treated With Carisolv and Papacarie- An in Vitro Study

“…As for RMGIC it was 12.06 ± 0.61 MPa for Carisolv and 11.78 ± 0.7 MPa for Papacarie. These values were consistent with the values obtained for caries affected dentin (GIC 6.36 ± 4.38, RMGIC 12.40 ± 7.48) by K Choi et al, 40 where µTBS of conventional GIC and RMGIC built over the sound and artificially created carious dentine using demineralising solution were studied.…”

Influence of Hesperidin Application on Bonding of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer-Based Restorative Material to Dentin Treated With Oxygen Induced Endodontic Irrigants

“…The fracture analysis showed that, mixed failure was the predominant type in all groups except in group C. The high percentages of mixed failure, especially in HP+H group could be attributed to the better bonding between the primer and dentin substrate and the weak cohesive strength of RMGI material . 37 Elemental analysis was assessed by energy dispersive x-ray (EDX) since it is both a sensitive and an accurate detecting method used to analyze the chemical composition and distribution of various elements. 38 The weight percentages of fluoride, strontium, aluminum, and silicon ions were investigated in this study since it has been proven that these ions released and exchanged at the tooth interface.…”

Influence of acid etching on shear strength of different glass ionomer cements

“…Pre-etching with polyacrylic acid only increased the bond strength in Group II (Riva Self Cure). A number of premature fractures occurred during the tests 6 . In such cases, the shear strength value was considered zero.…”

“…The ionomer forms a chemical union with the tooth due to the action of carboxyl groups of polyacids in the calcium found in the apatite of the enamel and dentin. The bond strength is stronger with the enamel due to its greater mineral component [6][7][23][24] . The adhesion mechanism of ionomer materials is the formation of an ionic bond between the liquid component of the cement and the calcium of the hydroxyapatite of the tooth.…”

“…These materials offer advantages such as physiochemical adhesion to the dental structure, biocompatibility, the release of fluoride for a long period of time, a thermal expansion coefficient similar to that of teeth and ease of use [5][6] . Despite these properties, glass ionomer cements have limitations, such as low diametral tensile and compressive strength and consequent low border strength as well as their considerable sensitivity to contraction and infiltration, especially in the first moments following placement in the oral cavity [6][7] . Strong, durable adhesion between the restorative material and tooth is essential, as the adequate adaptation of the material reduces microleakage, pulp irritation and risk of caries recurrence 8 .…”