Shear Bond Strength of Three Different Nano-Restorative Materials to Dentin

A ''sandwich technique'' restoration using nano-filled RMGI/resin composite can be achieved in one clinical bonding step using the self-etch adhesives. SUMMARYObjective: To investigate the shear bond strength of the nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to dentin using different selfetch adhesives.Materials and Methods: Two resin-based restorative materials, a nano-filled RMGI (Ketac Nano-100, 3M ESPE) and a restorative composite (Grandio, VOCO) were bonded to bovine dentin using four self-etch adhesives (Futurabond M, VOCO; Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE; G Bond, GC Corp; and One Coat, Coltène). One hundred bovine anterior teeth were used in this study. Subsequent to labial enamel removal, each adhesive was applied according to manufacturer instructions. Fifty teeth were restored with the nano-filled RMGI and the other 50 were restored with the resin composite. Cylinders of 332 mm from the two restorative materials were bonded to dentin, and the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours. Shear bond strength testing was performed in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Two randomly selected specimens from each group were chosen for evaluation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure modes were evaluated using the stereomicroscope. All data for shear bond strength in MPa were expressed as mean 6 standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was carried out using SAS program (SAS, 1988).Results: Two-way analysis of variance revealed that the adhesives, the restorative materials, and their interactions (adhesives and restorative materials) had a significant effect on the shear bond strength to bovine dentin.Conclusions: Self-etch adhesives used in this study can adequately bond the nano-filled RMGI to dentin.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bonding Nano-filled Resin-modified Glass Ionomer to Dentin Using Different Self-etch Adhesives

El-Askary¹,

Nassif²

2011

“…Regarding bond strength studies, SE has resulted in statistically higher dentin bond strengths than EB. 30 The bond strengths obtained with SE are not affected by thermal fatigue when bonded to coronal dentin 31 ; this may be a result of minimal residual water left entrapped within the dentin-adhesive interface.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Randomized Clinical Trial of Four Adhesion Strategies: 18-Month Results

Perdigão¹,

Dutra-Correa²,

Saraceni³

et al. 2012

The 18-month retention rate of the two self-etch adhesives used in the present study was similar to that of two etch-and-rinse adhesives from the same manufacturer. However, the quality of enamel margins was significantly better for the two etch-and-rinse adhesives. SUMMARYStatement of the Problem: With Institutional Review Board approval, 39 patients who needed restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) were enrolled in this study. A total of 125 NCCLs were selected and randomly assigned to four groups: 1) a three-step etch-andrinse adhesive, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (MP, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA); 2) a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, Adper Single Bond Plus (SB, 3M ESPE); 3) a two-step selfetch adhesive, Adper Scotchbond SE (SE, 3M ESPE); and 4) a one-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Easy Bond (EB, 3M ESPE). A nanofilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Restorations were evaluated at six months and 18 months using modified U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) parameters.Results: At six months after initial placement, 107 restorations (85.6% recall rate) were evaluated. At 18 months, 94 restorations (75.2% recall rate) were available for evaluation. The 6 mo/18 mo overall retention rates (%) were 100/90.9 for MP; 100/91.7 for SB; 100/90.9 for SE; and 96.4/92.3 for EB with no statistical difference between any pair of groups at each recall. Sensitivity to air decreased significantly for all adhesives from the preoperative to the postop-

“…Additionally, previous studies have reported that RMGIs have SBS values greater than glass ionomer materials but less than composites. 18,19 Therefore, it would be expected that conditions that enable a RMGI to behave like a The failure analysis revealed that more of the light-cured specimens of FII and KN failed by cohesive and mixed failures. This result further indicates that a stronger bond was formed between light-cured RMGI and dentin than uncured RMGI and dentin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Light Activation on Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Shear Bond Strength

Lawson

Çakır²,

Beck³

et al. 2012

SUMMARY Objective Recent studies confirmed that resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) set on the basis of two competing mechanisms, an acid-base reaction and a light-activated resin polymerization. This study evaluated the effect of the setting mechanism on bond strength by measuring the shear bond strength of three RMGIs to dentin with and without light activation. Methods Sixty human molars were ground to midcoronal dentin and randomly divided into six even groups: 1) Ketac Nano (KN), 2) KN without light cure (woLC), 3) Fuji Filling LC (FF), 4) FF woLC, 5) Fuji II LC (FII), and 6) FII woLC. The dentin surfaces of the specimens were conditioned/primed according to the manufacturers' instructions. A 1.54-mm diameter plastic tube was filled with RMGI material and affixed to the dentin surface. Groups 1, 3, and 5 were light cured for 20 seconds, and groups 2, 4, and 6 were immediately placed in a damp dark box with no light curing at 37°C for 24 hours. Shear bond strength testing was performed in an Instron device at 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey/Kramer test (α=0.05). Results Mean ± standard deviation shear bond strength values (MPa) are: 7.1 ± 4.2 (KN), 11.7 ± 3.9 (FF), 10.2 ± 3.2 (FF woLC), 12.5 ± 5.1 (FII), and 0.3 ± 0.4 (FII woLC). Two KN, all KN woLC, and seven FII woLC specimens debonded before testing. Tukey/Kramer analysis revealed no significant differences in bond strength between the three light-cured RMGIs. KN and FII showed significantly lower bond strength without light cure, but no significant difference was observed between FF and FF woLC. Conclusions The results of this study strongly suggest that light activation is necessary to obtain optimal bond strength between RMGI and dentin. FF may contain components that chemically activate resin polymerization. Clinically, KN and FII need to be light cured after placement of these RMGIs.