Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Packable Glass Ionomer Cement, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement, Compomer and Giomer to Primary and Permanent Teeth - An In Vitro Study

Abstract

BACKGROUND With the changing demand in dentistry, a wide range of dental materials is present in the market today. Choosing the best material for a given situation becomes confusing for a clinician. Shear bond strength gives an idea of retentiveness of a material partially. The purpose of the study was to determine and compare shear bond strength (SBS) of packable glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin- modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), compomer, and giomer to primary and permanent teeth. METHODS An in-vitro, experimental study was done. 60 freshly extracted permanent first premolars, extracted for orthodontic purpose and 60 freshly extracted over-retained deciduous molars were collected and kept in two groups. Specimens in each group were randomly divided into six subgroups depending on the material to be used. Flat dentinal surface on tooth was prepared over which restorative materials were placed. The prepared specimen was subjected to shear test and the value obtained was compared. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate the mean shear bond strength of each group. Also, analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test was performed with the help of critical difference (CD) at 5 % and 1 % level of significance. The debonded specimen were examined to assess the mode of failure. RESULTS Intragroup comparison for primary teeth showed that composite resin had the highest shear bond strength value (16.21 ± 1.12), followed by Giomer (14.25 ± 1.13), compomer (10.27 ± 1.38), RMGIC (6.06 ± 1.04), packable GIC (3.01 ± 0.85) and conventional GIC (2.94 ± 0.91). In permanent teeth, similar order was seen with composite resin showing highest bond strength (17.82 ± 1.50) followed by Giomer (15.26 ± 1.54), compomer (12.54 ± 1.36), RMGIC (7.00 ± 0.89), packable GIC (3.35 ± 0.98) and conventional GIC (3.30 ± 1.03). Intergroup comparison revealed, the values of shear bond strength (SBS) of all the materials tested was lower in primary teeth. However, the difference was statistically insignificant for conventional GIC and packable GIC. The mode of failure for packable GIC specimens was cohesive within the material, which suggests that the values obtained may not be the strength of the bonded interface but the strength of the material. In RMGIC it was predominantly mixed (cohesive within the material), which indicates that the values obtained were not clearly the strength of the bonded interface but due to inherent weakness of the material. The mode of failure in compomer and Giomer was adhesive failure suggesting that the value obtained was of adhesive bond formed at the interface. CONCLUSIONS Giomer and compomer proved to be the materials with high adhesiveness, so these can be recommended as a suitable restorative material for both primary and permanent teeth. Of the four materials tested, Giomer was found to be the best in terms of SBS in both the primary and permanent teeth. KEY WORDS Compomer, Glomer, Packable GIC, RMGIC, Shear Bond Strength

An in-vitro comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N, FujiCEM 2 with a conventional glass ionomer cement

“…Carvalho et al also evaluated the shear bond strength of conventional GICs and concluded their mean values to be lower [18] . Singh et al determined from their study that composite resin (16.21 ± 1.12) had the highest shear bond strength value while lowest was conventional GIC (2.94 ± 0.91) [14] . In accordance with the results of our study, the results of the in vitro studies conducted by Mallya et al and Verma et al suggested mechanical properties of Cention N were significantly higher as compared to that of GIC Type IX [19,20] .…”

“…To anticipate the thermal changes involved in a possible real oral cavity, two in vitro aging strategies were implemented. First the samples were immersed in distilled water for 7-10 days since alterations of the substrate caused by storage solutions can affect bond strength [14] . Second was the use of thermocycling ageing, where specimens are immersed in water baths at different temperatures between standardized intervals of time [15] .…”

ASSESSMENT OF SHEAR BOND STRENGH AND MARGINAL ADAPTATION OF ACTIVA VERSUS Fuji II LC IN PRIMARY MOLARS IN VITRO

“…The findings of Calvo et al (34) are in agreement with the present results and claim that 80% of glass ionomer cements showed an adhesive mode of failure. However, a study by Singh et al (35) revealed that the mode of failure of glass ionomer cements mostly mixed (cohesive inside the material), implying that the obtained outcomes didn't reflect the strength of the bonded interface but rather the material's intrinsic weakness.…”

Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Composite and Compomer in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study

“…Dental practitioners have also been confronted Since the beginning of dental practice, people have struggled with this issue, and a bigger portion of dental science is still devoted to finding artificial materials that can replace missing tooth structure. 1 Oral health is a critical aspect of general health since it helps to maintain the wellbeing of the craniofacial complex, teeth apparatus, as well as the orofacial tissues that surround the mouth on the face and head. 2,3 Dentin and enamel demineralize as a result of dental caries, a chronic disorder that affects teeth and is brought on by organic acids produced by bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates.…”