scholarly journals Effects of Ions-Releasing Restorative Materials on the Dentine Bonding Longevity of Modern Universal Adhesives after Load-Cycle and Prolonged Artificial Saliva Aging

Materials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Sauro ◽  
Irina Makeeva ◽  
Vicente Faus-Matoses ◽  
Federico Foschi ◽  
Massimo Giovarruscio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Load Cycle ◽  
Fractographic Analysis ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed at evaluating the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and fractographic features of dentine-bonded specimens created using universal adhesives applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etching (SE) mode in combination with modern ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC)-based materials after load cycling and artificial saliva aging. Two universal adhesives (FTB: Futurabond M+, VOCO, Germany; SCU: Scotchbond Universal, 3M Oral Care, USA) were used. Composite build-ups were made with conventional nano-filled composite (AURA, SDI, Australia), conventional resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux VOCO, Germany), or a (RMGIC)-based composite (ACTIVA, Pulpdent, USA). The specimens were divided in three groups and immersed in deionized water for 24 h, load-cycled (350,000 cycles; 3 Hz; 70 N), or load-cycled and cut into matchsticks and finally immersed for 8 months in artificial saliva (AS). The specimens were cut into matchsticks and tested for microtensile bond strength. The results were analyzed statistically using three-way ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD post hoc test (p < 0.05). Fractographic analysis was performed through stereomicroscope and FE-SEM. FTB showed no significant drop in bond strength after aging. Unlike the conventional composite, the two RMGIC-based materials caused no bond strength reduction in SCU after load-cycle aging and after prolonged aging (8 months). The SEM fractographic analysis showed severe degradation, especially with composite applied on dentine bonded with SCU in ER mode; such degradation was less evident with the two GIC-based materials. The dentine-bond longevity may be influenced by the composition rather than the mode of application (ER vs. SE) of the universal adhesives. Moreover, the choice of the restorative material may play an important role on the longevity of the finalrestoration. Indeed, bioactive GIC-based materials may contribute to maintain the bonding performance of simplified universal adhesives over time, especially when these bonding systems are applied in ER mode.

scholarly journals Bond strength of a resin composite and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement associated or not with chlorhexidine to eroded dentin

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Flavia Pardo Salata Nahsan ◽  
Martha Beteghelli Michielin ◽  
Luciana Mendonça Da Silva ◽  
Camila Moreira Machado ◽  
Andréa Mello De Andrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Cervical Region ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Prior Application ◽  
Ionomer Cement

<p><strong>Objective</strong>: Even resin composites and glass-ionomer cements are widely used for dental cervical region restorations, under erosive condition they can wear out quickly. This study aimed to compare, by means of bond strength by microshear, the performance of a resin composite (RC) and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to eroded dentin and its association with 2% chlorhexidine up to 6 months. <strong>Material</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Methods</strong>:. Eighty  sound third molars teeth were cutt to obtain flat coronal dentin, which were subsequently embedded in self-curing acrylic resin circular molds exposing only this surface available. Teeth were divided into two groups, according to the treatment with the Adper Single Bond 2 + RC Filtek Z250 (Z) or the RMGIC Vitremer (V). Half of the specimens were immersed in artificial saliva-AS for 24 hours (control groups) and half subjected to 3x/1 minute daily immersion in Regular Coca Cola ®-RC for 5 days. Half of the specimens for each described condition were treated with water and half with 2% chlorhexidine for 1 minute prior the restoration. For all groups, the specimens were stored in artificial saliva weekly renewed up to tests. The bonding strength was evaluated by  microshear test after 1 month and 6 months . Data, in normal distribution, were analyzed with 3-way ANOVA and Tukey (p &lt;0.05). <strong>Results</strong>: Challenge factors, materials and time were statistically significant.. Restorations with Z showed significantly higher bond strength compared to V in all situations. There was a reduction in bond strength values over time for all tested conditions. The prior application of 2% chlorhexidine was able to preserve the Z bond strength between 1 and 6 months, but this factor was not statistically significant. <strong>Conclusion</strong>: For eroded dentin, the use of resin composite seems presents greater bond strength compared to resin-modified glass-material, disregarding their association to chlorhexidine or not.</p>

Influence of Silver Diamine Fluoride Treatment on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement to Sound and Carious Dentin

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. E271-E279
Author(s):  
M Jiang ◽  
ML Mei ◽  
MCM Wong ◽  
CH Chu ◽  
ECM Lo
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
T Test ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Silver Diamine Fluoride ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Clinical Relevance This study provides valuable information about the influence of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) treatment on the microtensile bond strength of glass ionomer cement (GIC) to dentin. SUMMARY Objectives: To investigate the influence of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) treatment on the microtensile bond strength (mTBS) of glass ionomer cement (GIC) to sound and artificial carious dentin. Methods: Thirty dentin blocks prepared from 30 noncarious human molars were randomly allocated into either the sound (Gp1) or artificial carious dentin (Gp2) groups. A microbiological method was adopted to create artificial dentin caries lesions in Gp2 specimens. Each dentin block was sectioned into two halves perpendicularly, and each pair of block halves was randomly assigned to two subgroups to receive topical application of SDF (Gp1-SDF, Gp2-SDF) or water as control (Gp1-water, Gp2-water). An encapsulated GIC was bonded to the exposed dentin surfaces 14 days after the SDF/water application. After immersion for 7 days in artificial saliva, the GIC-dentin specimens were sectioned into beams for mTBS testing. Failure mode was examined after the mTBS test. Results: There was no significant difference in the mean mTBS values between the SDF and control subgroups (Gp1-SDF vs Gp1-water, 10.57±1.6 MPa vs 10.20±1.8 MPa; Gp2-SDF vs Gp2-water, 6.14±2.2 MPa vs 5.97±2.3 MPa; paired t-test, p&gt;0.05). However, the mean mTBS value of the sound dentin group was significantly higher than that of the carious dentin group, irrespective of whether SDF was applied prior to GIC bonding (independent t-test, p&lt;0.001). Proportionally more cohesive failures occurred in the sound dentin groups (Gp1-SDF, 48.4%; Gp1-water, 42.9%) compared with the carious dentin groups (Gp2-SDF, 15.6%; Gp2-water, 9.8%; p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: SDF treatment had no significant influence on the mTBS of GIC to dentin. Compared with sound dentin, dentin with caries had lower mTBS to GIC.

Microtensile Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Sound and Artificial Caries–Affected Root Dentin With Different Conditioning

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 626-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Saad ◽  
G Inoue ◽  
T Nikaido ◽  
M Ikeda ◽  
MF Burrow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Carious Lesions ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Root Dentin ◽  
Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY In this laboratory study, the microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) to sound and artificial caries–affected bovine root dentin (ACAD) using three different conditioning agents were evaluated after 24 hours and three months. The fractured interface was examined with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Specimens were created on bovine root dentin that was embedded in epoxy resin. For the ACAD specimens, artificial carious lesions were created. The RM-GIC (Fuji II LC) was applied either directly (no treatment), after application of self conditioner, cavity conditioner, or 17% ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) applied for 60 seconds, on sound dentin and ACAD, then light cured. They were stored in artificial saliva for 24 hours or three months. Following this, the specimens were cut into sticks for the μTBS test, and the failure mode of the debonded specimens was examined by using SEM. Pretest failures were excluded from the statistical analysis of the μTBS values because of their high incidence in some groups. Results showed that the μTBS values were significantly affected by the dentin substrate as well as the conditioning agent. Self conditioner provided the highest and most stable μTBS values, while cavity conditioner showed stable μTBS values on sound dentin. Both self conditioner and cavity conditioner had significantly higher μTBS values than the no treatment groups. EDTA conditioning reduced the μTBS after three months to sound dentin, while it showed 100% pretest failure with ACAD for both storage periods.

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 Bond strength of orthodontic light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Y. Cheng ◽  
C. H. Chen ◽  
C. L. Li ◽  
H. H. Tsai ◽  
T. H. Chou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document