Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer and Composite Resin to Three Pulp Capping Agents

Ajami, Amir Ahmad; Navimipour, Elmira Jafari; Oskoee, Siavash Savadi; Kahnamoui, Mehdi Abed; Lotfi, Mehrdad; Daneshpooy, Mehdi

doi:10.5681/joddd.2013.026

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the SBS of RC to the tested bioceramic materials in the immediately restored groups was significantly higher than RMGI except with ProRoot MTA. This finding agreed with previous studies, which showed a higher SBS of RC in comparison to RMGI [31,32,35]. This might be attributed to the use of a bonding agent with RC and not with RMGI.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In this study, the mean SBS of ProRoot MTA with delayed RC placement was comparable to the previous investigations [30][31][32]34,35]. However, it was lower than in Alhowaish et al, where they reported the SBS of ProRoot MTA to be 22.11 MPa; this high value could be due to the different methodology used in their study, where they used cylindrical metal molds to fabricate disc specimens as well as 35% phosphoric acid etching and the application of two consecutive coats of the adhesive system [33].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…A variety of restorative materials are used in VPT including zinc oxide-eugenol cement base (ZOE), IRM, resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and resin composite (RC) [25][26][27][28]. The shear bond strength (SBS) between MTA and RC has been evaluated in multiple studies using different etching and bonding techniques, which resulted in a wide range of values [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. The SBS of RC to premixed bioceramics has been investigated in limited studies and reported to be lower than MTA [34,39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature is still ambiguous about the restorative protocol following the placement of bioceramic materials, as well as the optimal time for permanent restoration placement [40]. Few researchers have compared the SBS of RC and RMGI to bioceramic materials, and they found a stronger bond strength with RC [31,32,35]. The impact of RC restoration timing on the SBS was investigated by Palma et al, who found that a delayed restorative procedure 7 days following MTA resulted in a significantly higher SBS, while with premixed bioceramics no significant difference was found between immediate and delayed restorations [39,41].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin composite (RC) and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to four different bioceramic materials and to compare the effects of the immediate vs. delayed placement of restoration on the SBS. A total of 160 Teflon blocks and 40 blocks/material, were randomly filled with one of the bioceramic materials (NeoPUTTY®, NeoMTA2®, TotalFill® BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty, and ProRoot® MTA). The restoration was performed immediately or in a delayed time frame (after 7 days) using a Filtek™ Z350 XT Flowable composite (bonded to the bioceramic materials using Single bond universal 3M) or GC Fuji II LC® RMGI. The SBS test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the failure mode was evaluated under a digital microscope by one blinded examiner. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Games–Howell post hoc test was used to compare the mean SBS between the groups. The mean SBS of the bioceramic materials to RC was significantly higher than to RMGI except for ProRoot MTA (p-value 0.65). The SBS values to RC were as follows: ProRoot MTA (7.64 MPa); NeoMTA2 (8.57 MPa) which was significantly higher than both NeoPUTTY (4.04 MPa) and TotalFill® BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty (4.38 MPa). For RMGI groups, ProRoot MTA showed the highest SBS (7.18 MPa), followed by NeoMTA2 (4.15 MPa), NeoPUTTY (1.62 MPa), and TotalFill® BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty (1.54 MPa). The delayed timing restoration showed a significantly higher SBS than the immediate, except for the immediate RMGI restoration with MTA. To conclude, the SBS of RC to the bioceramic materials was significantly higher than RMGI, except for ProRoot MTA. Both restorative materials had a significantly higher SBS to the MTA groups in comparison to premixed bioceramics. Delayed RC restoration had a higher SBS than immediate restoration. Similarly, delayed RMGI restoration had a higher SBS than immediate restoration with premixed bioceramic but not with MTA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is important to identify materials that are compatible in relation to the interface between the two different materials. 3 Any material which is used as a base or cavity liners, are described as materials that are used as a layer to seal the dentin floor from the invasion of bacteria and irritants as well as for thermal insulation. These materials should possess an adequate seal, prevent leakage, and remain intact under dislodging forces like masticatory pressure and also be adhesive to the dentine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Methacrylate-based Composite, Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement, and Fuji IX Glass Ionomer Cement with Biodentine as a Base

Nagaveni¹,

Kenchappa²,

Poornima³

et al. 2020

CODS Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:A material which is used as a base must have an adequate seal, be able to prevent leakage, and remain in place under dislodging forces, such as chewing pressure and also having adhesive properties to restorative materials and to the dentine. Hence, it is important to know the bond strength in clinical practice. Aim and objective: The aim and objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of the glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin composite with Biodentine as a base. Materials and methods: Acrylic blocks with a central hole measuring 2 mm in depth and 5 mm in diameter were prepared. A total of 30 samples were prepared, the holes were then filled with Biodentine and the samples were randomly divided into 3 subgroups consisting 10 specimens each: group I: methacrylate-based (MB) composite, group II: Fuji type II resin-modified GIC (RMGIC), and group III: Fuji type IX GIC. For the SBS test, each block was secured in a universal testing machine and the values were compared by using one-way analysis of variance. Results: Highest bond strength of 1.495 ± 0.05 MPa was observed in group I (i.e., MB composite), followed by group II with 1.139 ± 0.02 MPa (i.e., type II RMGIC), and the lowest bond strength of 0.80 ± 0.05 MPa observed in group III (i.e., Fuji IX GIC). Conclusion:The adhesion of Biodentine to MB composite surface appears to be greater compared to that of RMGIC and GIC.

show abstract

Effect of restorative timing on shear bond strength of composite resin/calcium silicate–based cements adhesive interfaces

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer and Composite Resin to Three Pulp Capping Agents

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 publications

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Methacrylate-based Composite, Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement, and Fuji IX Glass Ionomer Cement with Biodentine as a Base

Effect of restorative timing on shear bond strength of composite resin/calcium silicate–based cements adhesive interfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About