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

Abstract

<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 <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>

Effect of Dentin Conditioning and Erosive Coca Cola Challenge on the Micro-shear Bond Strength and SEM Evaluation of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement- in vitro study

“…34 Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the erosive effects of different factors on the surface topography, chemical composition and behavior of direct and indirect restorative materials. [27][28][29][30][31][34][35][36][37][38] Several studies were conducted to evaluate the role of pH cycles on the validity of bond strength of resin composite restorations [39][40][41] , bond strength of restorations to eroded enamel and dentin 42,43 , but no or little information are available about the effect of pH cycling on the bonding of RMGICs to dentin. 44 From the previous information a study designed to evaluate the role of an erosive beverage, Coca cola, on the micro-shear bond strength of nano-fill resin modified glass-ionomer cement to dentin, after different conditioning protocol, may be of interest.…”

Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate on dentin carious lesion in vitro

“…The morphological, chemical and physical characteristics of affected dentin had changed that caused effect to low bonded structure (12). Although, the bond strength of resin composite was superior to conventional GIC (41) and RMGIC (42) in sound teeth, RMGIC had higher micro-tensile bond strength than resin composite in caries affected primary molar teeth (43). H-GIC is suitable material for the situation that are obstacles to reach dental units because H-GIC is less moisture sensitive property than resin composite and RMGIC (44,45).…”