Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 2599-2608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Francois ◽  
Elsa Vennat ◽  
Stéphane Le Goff ◽  
Nathalie Ruscassier ◽  
Jean-Pierre Attal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Interface Analysis ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals To Evaluate Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Theracal Lc, Biodentine, and Resin–Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Mode of Fracture: An In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (02) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Salil Mehra ◽  
Ashu K. Gupta ◽  
Bhanu Pratap Singh ◽  
Mandeep Kaur ◽  
Ashwath Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Introduction The aim of the current study was to evaluate shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to Theracal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) using universal adhesive and mode of fracture. Materials and Methods A total of 50 caries-free maxillary and mandibular molars extracted were taken; occlusal cavities were prepared, mounted in acrylic blocks, and divided into five groups based on the liner used. Group 1: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 12 minutes. Group 2: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 14 days. Group 3: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Group 4: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 7 days. Group 5: Theracal LC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Each sample was bonded to resin composite using universal adhesive. Shear bond strength analysis was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/min. Statistical Analysis  Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni test using SPSS version 22.0. Results and Conclusion Biodentine liner when bonded immediately to resin composite showed minimum shear bond strength. RMGIC when bonded to resin composite after 7 days showed maximum shear bond strength. Mode of fracture was predominantly cohesive in groups having Biodentine and Theracal LC as liner.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength Evaluation of Resin Composite Bonded to GIC Using Three Different Adhesives

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Gopikrishna ◽  
M. Abarajithan ◽  
J. Krithikadatta ◽  
D. Kandaswamy
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Strength Evaluation ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Clinical Relevance The bond strength of resin composite to glass-ionomer cement can be enhanced when a self-etching primer is employed over unset GIC or when a glass-ionomer based adhesive is employed over set GIC when compared to using a total-etch adhesive.

Influence of thermocycling on shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement to Er:YAG laser-prepared enamel

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 978-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan-Yuan Kong ◽  
Yi Chen ◽  
Rui Shen ◽  
Qian-Zhou Jiang ◽  
Min-Le Chen
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Three Self-adhesive Resin Cements and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Various Prosthodontic Substrates

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Sabatini ◽  
Manthan Patel ◽  
Eric D'Silva
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Setting Reaction ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY Objective To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three self-adhesive resin cements and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to different prosthodontic substrates. Materials and Methods The substrates base metal, noble metal, zirconia, ceramic, and resin composite were used for bonding with different cements (n=12). Specimens were placed in a bonding jig, which was filled with one of four cements (RelyX Unicem, Multilink Automix, Maxcem Elite, and FujiCEM Automix). Both light-polymerizing (LP) and self-polymerizing (SP) setting reactions were tested. Shear bond strength was measured at 15 minutes and 24 hours in a testing device at a test speed of 1 mm/min and expressed in MPa. A Student t-test and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate differences between setting reactions, between testing times, and among cements irrespective of other factors. Generalized linear regression model and Tukey tests were used for multifactorial analysis. Results Significantly higher mean SBS were demonstrated for LP mode relative to SP mode (p<0.001) and for 24 hours relative to 15 minutes (p<0.001). Multifactorial analysis revealed that all factors (cement, substrate, and setting reaction) and all their interactions had a significant effect on the bond strength (p<0.001). Resin showed significantly higher SBS than other substrates when bonded to RelyX Unicem and Multilink Automix in LP mode (p<0.05). Overall, FujiCEM demonstrated significantly lower SBS than the three self-adhesive resin cements (p<0.05). Conclusions Overall, higher bond strengths were demonstrated for LP relative to SP mode, 24 hours relative to 15 minutes and self-adhesive resin cements compared to the RMGICs. Bond strengths also varied depending on the substrate, indicating that selection of luting cement should be partially dictated by the substrate and the setting reaction.

An Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength Developed Between a Glass Ionomer Cement and Enamel

1978 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.D. Carlyle ◽  
A. Chamma ◽  
R.W. Moir ◽  
P.T. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Glass Ionomer Cements can be used for Bonding Orthodontic Brackets After Cancer Radiation Treatment?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Cristina Santin ◽  
Alexandra Mussolino de Queiroz ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb ◽  
Harley Francisco de Oliveira ◽  
Paulo Nelson Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment present more susceptibility to dental caries and the use of an orthodontic device increases this risk factor due to biofilm accumulation around the brackets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength to irradiated permanent teeth of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement due to the fluoride release capacity of these materials. Ninety prepared human premolars were divided into 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding material and use or not of radiation: CR: Transbond XT composite resin; RMGIC: Fuji Ortho LC conventional glass ionomer cement; GIC: Ketac Cem Easymix resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The groups were irradiated (I) or non-irradiated (NI) prior to bracket bonding. The specimens were subjected to a fractioned radiation dose of 2 Gy over 5 consecutive days for 6 weeks. After the radiotherapy, the brackets were bonded on the specimens with Transbond XT, Fuji Ortho LC and Ketac Cem Easymix. After 24 h, the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test. The image of enamel surface (classified by Adhesive Remnant Index - ARI) was also evaluated and its frequency was checked among groups/subgroups. The shear bond strength variable was evaluated with ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test. GIC group showed the lowest adhesion values among the groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among non-irradiated and irradiated groups (p>0.05). As for the ARI, the CR-I group showed the highest material retention on enamel surface among the irradiated groups. RMGIC group showed the highest values for shear bond strength and presented ARI acceptable for clinical practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document