Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Material, Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement to the Dentinal Surface of Primary Molars: an in vitro Study

Komal Nanavati, Farhin Katge, Vamsi Krishna Chimata, Debapriya Pradhan, Aishwarya Kamble, Devendra Patil, Komal Nanavati, Farhin Katge, Vamsi Krishna Chimata, Debapriya Pradhan, Aishwarya Kamble, Devendra Patil

Abstract

Statement of the problem: The success of dental restorations depends mainly on its ability to bond to dental structures and resist the multitude of forces acting on it within the oral cavity.

Purpose: Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three different glass ionomer based restorative materials.

Materials and method: In this in vitro analytical study, 30 intact primary molars were sectioned buccolingually to obtain 60 sections. These sections were embedded in auto polymerizing acrylic resin and polished to obtain a flat dentin surface. Restoration cylinders were built on the dentin surface with the help of a Teflon template called bonding jig. Each group (n= 20) was restored as group A with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) (GC Fuji Gold Label Type 9), group B with Bioactive restorative material (ACTIVATM KIDS BioACTIVE Restorative material), and group C with Zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement (Zirconomer). Following restoration, SBS testing was performed using Universal Testing Machine. The data obtained were statistically analyzed using One way ANOVA test and post hoc Tukey test (p= 0.05).

Results: The SBS values were significantly greater in the ACTIVA KIDS group as compared to the other two groups (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference in the SBS values between group B and group C (p> 0.05).

Conclusion: The SBS of the ACTIVA KIDS to primary teeth dentin was the highest as compared to Zirconomer and conventional GIC. Therefore ACTIVA KIDS may protect primary teeth against recurrent caries and failure of the restoration.

Keywords: Composite resins; Dentin; Glass ionomer cements; Primary teeth; Shear strength; Zirconium.

Copyright: © Journal of Dentistry.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Dispensing ACTIVA KIDS using a spencer gun through the bonding jig template
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sample with restorative cement built on to the dentin surface
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sample with the cement mounted in universal testing machine for shear bond strength (SBS) evaluation
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of shear bond strength values for all three groups

References

    1. Hubel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003; 13: 2–8.
    1. Raju VG, Venumbaka NR, Mungara J, Vijayakumar P, Rajendran S, Elangovan A. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of tricalcium silicate-based restorative material and radioopaque posterior glass ionomer restorative cement in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014; 32: 304–310.
    1. Jang KT, Chung DH, Shin D, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of eccentric load cycling on microleakage of Class V flowable and packable composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 603–608.
    1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry: the glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972; 15: 133–135.
    1. Meral E, Baseren NM. Shear bond strength and microleakage of novel glass-ionomer cements: An In vitro Study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019; 22: 566–572.
    1. Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53: 325–331.
    1. Tiwari S, Kenchappa M, Bhayya D, Gupta S, Saxena S, Satyarth S, et al. Antibacterial activity and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement, compomer and zirconia reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10: ZC90–ZC93.
    1. Afutu R, Daddona J, Dunn K, Finkelman M, Tran A, Kugel G. Shear Bond Strength of Several Dental Cements. J Dent Sci. 2019; 4(000234): 1–5.
    1. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, Sibal GK. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Various Glass Ionomer Cements to Dentin of Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016; 9: 192–196.
    1. Murthy SS, Murthy GS. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three commercially available glass ionomer cements in primary teeth. J Int Oral Health. 2015; 7: 103–107.
    1. Chen CC, Huang TH, Kao CT, Ding SJ. Effect of conditioners on bond durability of resin composite to Nd: YAP laser-irradiated dentin. Dent Mat J. 2006; 25: 463–469.
    1. Manuja N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Nagpal R. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011; 29: 7–13.
    1. Abdalla AI, Garcia-Godoy F. Bond strengths of resin-modified glass ionomers and polyacid-modified resin composites to dentin. Am J Dent . 1997; 10: 291–294.
    1. Almuammar MF, Schulman A, Salama FS. Shear bond strength of six restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001; 25: 221–225.
    1. Mauro SJ, Sundfeld RH, Bedran-Russo AK, Briso AF. Bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer to dentin: the effect of dentin surface treatment. J Minim Interv Dent. 2009; 2: 45–53.
    1. Owens BM, Phebus JG, Johnson WW. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material. Gen Dent. 2018; 66: 32–36.
    1. Alkhudhairy FI, Ahmad ZH. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016; 17: 997–1002.
    1. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A randomized controlled three year evaluation of “bulk-filled” posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater. 2014; 30: e245–e251.
    1. Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry-a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent. 1998; 20: 93–100.
    1. Prabhakar AR, Kalimireddy PL, Yavagal C, Sugandhan S. Assessment of the clinical performance of zirconia infused glass ionomer cement: An in vivo study. Int J Oral Health Sci. 2015; 5: 74–79.
    1. Chalissery VP, Marwah N, Almuhaiza M, AlZailai AM, Chalisserry EP, Bhandi SH, et al. Study of the mechanical properties of the novel zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016; 17: 394–398.
    1. Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Uno S. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: Bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 1996; 12: 161–166.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit