scholarly journals Effect of three silver diamine fluoride application protocols on the microtensile bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement to carious dentin in primary teeth

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
BaranyaShrikrishna Suprabha ◽  
SavilRamachandra Uchil ◽  
Ethel Suman ◽  
Ramya Shenoy ◽  
Srikant Natarajan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Silver Diamine Fluoride ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Application Protocols ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Packable Glass Ionomer Cement, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement, Compomer and Giomer to Primary and Permanent Teeth - An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 1429-1434
Author(s):  
Pooja Singh ◽  
Manish Jha ◽  
Kashika Arora ◽  
Deepa Bhat ◽  
Kiran Awchat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Mode Of Failure ◽  
Ionomer Cement

BACKGROUND With the changing demand in dentistry, a wide range of dental materials is present in the market today. Choosing the best material for a given situation becomes confusing for a clinician. Shear bond strength gives an idea of retentiveness of a material partially. The purpose of the study was to determine and compare shear bond strength (SBS) of packable glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin- modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), compomer, and giomer to primary and permanent teeth. METHODS An in-vitro, experimental study was done. 60 freshly extracted permanent first premolars, extracted for orthodontic purpose and 60 freshly extracted over-retained deciduous molars were collected and kept in two groups. Specimens in each group were randomly divided into six subgroups depending on the material to be used. Flat dentinal surface on tooth was prepared over which restorative materials were placed. The prepared specimen was subjected to shear test and the value obtained was compared. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate the mean shear bond strength of each group. Also, analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test was performed with the help of critical difference (CD) at 5 % and 1 % level of significance. The debonded specimen were examined to assess the mode of failure. RESULTS Intragroup comparison for primary teeth showed that composite resin had the highest shear bond strength value (16.21 ± 1.12), followed by Giomer (14.25 ± 1.13), compomer (10.27 ± 1.38), RMGIC (6.06 ± 1.04), packable GIC (3.01 ± 0.85) and conventional GIC (2.94 ± 0.91). In permanent teeth, similar order was seen with composite resin showing highest bond strength (17.82 ± 1.50) followed by Giomer (15.26 ± 1.54), compomer (12.54 ± 1.36), RMGIC (7.00 ± 0.89), packable GIC (3.35 ± 0.98) and conventional GIC (3.30 ± 1.03). Intergroup comparison revealed, the values of shear bond strength (SBS) of all the materials tested was lower in primary teeth. However, the difference was statistically insignificant for conventional GIC and packable GIC. The mode of failure for packable GIC specimens was cohesive within the material, which suggests that the values obtained may not be the strength of the bonded interface but the strength of the material. In RMGIC it was predominantly mixed (cohesive within the material), which indicates that the values obtained were not clearly the strength of the bonded interface but due to inherent weakness of the material. The mode of failure in compomer and Giomer was adhesive failure suggesting that the value obtained was of adhesive bond formed at the interface. CONCLUSIONS Giomer and compomer proved to be the materials with high adhesiveness, so these can be recommended as a suitable restorative material for both primary and permanent teeth. Of the four materials tested, Giomer was found to be the best in terms of SBS in both the primary and permanent teeth. KEY WORDS Compomer, Glomer, Packable GIC, RMGIC, Shear Bond Strength

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document