Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

  • Kiana Poorzandpoush Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mehdi Shahrabi Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Alireza Heidari Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Zohre Sadat Hosseinipour Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Composite Resins, Dentin, Glass Ionomer Cements, Shear Strength

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin.

Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test.

Results: A significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.

References

Bücher K, Metz I, Pitchika V, Hickel R, Kühnisch J. Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Sep;19(7):1653-62.

Korkmaz Y, Gurgan S, Firat E, Nathanson D. Shear bond strength of three different nano-restorative materials to dentin. Oper Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):50-7.

Türkmen C, Sazak-Oveçoğlu H, Günday M, Güngör G, Durkan M, Oksüz M. Shear bond strength of composite bonded with three adhesives to Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared enamel. Quintessence Int. 2010 Jun;41(6):e119-24.

Memarpour M, Shafiei F, Razmjoei F, Kianimanesh N. Effect of laser preparation on adhesion of a self-adhesive flowable composite resin to primary teeth. Microsc Res Tech. 2016 Apr;79(4):334-41.

Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Suyama Y, Mine A, Peumans M, et al. Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2013 Feb;29(2):221-30.

Wajdowicz MN, Vandewalle KS, Means MT. Shear bond strength of new self-adhesive flowable composite resins. Gen Dent. 2012 Mar-Apr;60(2):e104-8.

Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jul;17(6):1497-506.

Naga AA, Yousef M, Ramadan R, Fayez Bahgat S, Alshawwa L. Does the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage? Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015 Mar 27;7:55-64.

Makishi P, Pacheco RR, Sadr A, Shimada Y, Sumi Y, Tagami J, et al. Assessment of Self-Adhesive Resin Composites: Nondestructive Imaging of Resin-Dentin Interfacial Adaptation and Shear Bond Strength. Microsc Microanal. 2015 Dec;21(6):1523-9.

Salerno M, Derchi G, Thorat S, Ceseracciu L, Ruffilli R, Barone AC. Surface morphology and mechanical properties of new-generation flowable resin composites for dental restoration. Dent Mater. 2011 Dec;27(12):1221-8.

Sachdeva P, Goswami M, Singh D. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and nanoleakage of conventional and self-adhering flowable composites to primary teeth dentin. Contemp Clin Dent. 2016 Jul-Sep;7(3):326-31.

Goracci C, Margvelashvili M, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Mar;17(2):609-17.

Pacifici E, Chazine M, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Shear-bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable restorative material to dentin of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013 Winter;38(2):149-54.

Scaminaci Russo D, Pierleoni F, Buti J, Ferrari M, Giachetti L. In vitro comparison of bonding effectiveness of different adhesive strategies. Am J Dent. 2014 Dec;27(6):323-9.

Scaminaci Russo D, Iuliano V, Franchi L, Ferrari M, Giachetti L. Adhesion to primary dentin: microshear bond strength and scanning electron microscopic observation. Am J Dent. 2013 Dec;26(6):341-6.

Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjäderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):1-16.

Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982 May;16(3):265-73.

Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, Lambrechts P, et al. Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. J Dent Res. 1993 Oct;72(10):1434-42.

Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003 Oct;28(3):215-35.

Yazici AR, Agarwal I, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros C, Antonson SA, Antonson DE, et al. Effect of laser preparation on bond strength of a self-adhesive flowable resin. Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Jan;28(1):343-7.

Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007 Sep;28(26):3757-85.

Uekusa S, Yamaguchi K, Miyazaki M, Tsubota K, Kurokawa H, Hosoya Y. Bonding efficacy of single-step self-etch systems to sound primary and permanent tooth dentin. Oper Dent. 2006 Sep-Oct;31(5):569-76.

Fu J, Kakuda S, Pan F, Hoshika S, Ting S, Fukuoka A, et al. Bonding performance of a newly developed step-less all-in-one system on dentin. Dent Mater J. 2013 Mar;32(2):203-11.

Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, Topp EM, Misra A, Marangos O, et al. Adhesive/Dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010 Jun;38(6):1989-2003.

Al Qahtani MQ, Platt JA, Moore BK, Cochran MA. The effect on shear bond strength of rewetting dry dentin with two desensitizers. Oper Dent. 2003 May-Jun;28(3):287-96.

Published
2019-01-20
How to Cite
1.
Poorzandpoush K, Shahrabi M, Heidari A, Hosseinipour ZS. Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin. Front Dent. 16(1):62-68.
Section
Original Article