Bonding Ability of Different Liners to Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Using Silane-Containing Adhesive

Abstract

Aims: To compare and evaluate the bonding ability of bulk-fill resin composite (RC) to four different liners: Biodentine (BD), TheraCal (TLC)-a novel resin-modified calcium silicate cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) using a universal silane-containing adhesive and characterizing their failure modes. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted intact human premolars with occlusal cavity (4-mm diameter and 2-mm height) were mounted in acrylic blocks and divided into four groups of (n=10 samples) each based on the liner used as group I; (BD), group II; (TLC), group III; (RMGIC) and Group IV; (GIC). Bulk-fill composite buildup of 3 mm diameter and 5 mm height was then bonded to each sample using universal adhesive. Shear bond strength (SBS) analysis was performed using materials testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test for numerical data while chi square test for categorical one. Results: One-way analysis with ANOVA revealed significant difference in bond strength values between the different groups (p<0.001). The observed modes of failure were predominantly cohesive in Biodentine, TheraCal and GIC groups while RMGIC showed majority of mixed and minority adhesive failures. Conclusions: Biodentine demonstrated lower bond strength values when immediately bonded to bulk-fill resin composite compared with RMGIC, TheraCal and GIC groups (2906)

Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based liners to resin-modified glass ionomer cement in resin composite restorations - a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…All the ten studies selected were comparative in vitro studies performed on extracted teeth and on various artificial models to support the restorations. The various models used are extracted permanent premolar 29,30 or molar teeth, 17,31 artificial models like acrylic resin blocks 32,33,34,35 and disk specimens. 36,37 The total sample size ranges between 20-600 teeth or model.…”

“…36,37 The total sample size ranges between 20-600 teeth or model. Out of ten studies, seven articles included Biodentine, five included TheraCal LC and three included Similarly, five studies used Universal adhesive, 17,29,30,31,37 five used Adper Single bond 3M ESPE 32,33,34,35,36 as adhesives with a curing time ranging from 10-20 seconds.…”

“…Clearfil SE and Tetric N Bond self-etch were also used in two studies. 33,35 Conventional resin composites, nano composites, 31 bulk fill resin composites 30 and flowable composites 36 Tetric N bond self-etch were used as etchants respectively. 35 The shear bond strength was measured using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) in all the studies, with a cross head speed ranging from 0.1-1 mm/minute.…”

“…35 The shear bond strength was measured using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) in all the studies, with a cross head speed ranging from 0.1-1 mm/minute. The mode of failure was analysed in seven studies using Stereomicroscope, 17,30,32,37 SEM evaluation, 32,37 Optical 31 and Digital microscope 36 under different magnifications.…”

Minimal Intervention in Dentistry: A Literature Review on Biodentine as a Bioactive Pulp Capping Material

“…In general, when comparing the bond strength of Biodentine, TheraCal LC, and resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGI) to resin composites, Biodentine has been reported to have the lowest bond strength [ 128 , 130 , 136 , 137 , 142 ]. The higher bond strength for the RMGI and TheraCal LC might be attributed to the presence of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), which promotes chemical adhesion to the resin-based restorative materials [ 143 ].…”