Aim and objective: To compare between mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) mixed with water and water-based gel regarding shear bond strength with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and composite. Methods and materials: In this study, 40 blocks of cylindrical shape were prepared with acrylic. These blocks were divided into four groups with each group consisting of 10 blocks: group-1A: MTA + distilled water + composite, group-1B: MTA + distilled water + RMGIC, group-2A: MTA + polymer + composite, and group-2B: RMGIC + MTA + polymer. After that, a universal testing machine was used for the measurement of shear bond strength. The acrylic blocks were placed under this machine. A blade with a knife-edge was used to provide a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. This was continued till bond of MTA in both forms (distilled water/gel) and restorative material failed. Results: It was observed that a statistically significant difference was found between MTAw + composite and MTAg + composite resin but no statistically significant difference between MTAw + RMGIC and MTAg + RMGIC with p . 0.05. It was found that a statistically significant difference was present between the RMGIC and composite groups within the same MTA type with p . 0.05. Conclusion: It was concluded from the present study that MTA with a water-based gel has a better shear bond strength than composite resin and RMGIC materials. Clinical significance: It has been found that MTA has different properties when it is mixed with polymer and water. Very few studies have been conducted in the past to compare MTA mixed with water and water-based gel regarding the shear bond strength with RMGIC and composite.
Macwan C, Deshpande A. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) in dentistry: a review of literature. J Oral Res Rev 2014;6(2):71–74. DOI: 10.4103/2249-4987.152914.
Gandolfi MG, Taddei P, Siboni F, et al. Biomimetic remineralization of human dentin using promising innovative calcium-silicate hybrid “smart” materials. Dent Mater 2011;27(11):1055–1069. DOI: 10.1016/j. dental.2011.07.007.
Cantekin K. Bond strength of different restorative materials to lightcurable mineral trioxide aggregate. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;39(2):143–148. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.39.2.84x57tp110k46183.
Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review – Part III: clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 2010;36(3):400–413. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.009.
Kaul R, Farooq R, Kaul V, et al. Evaluation of biological, physical and chemical properties of mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with 4-META/MMA-TBB. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24(4):418–422. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.118381.
Siboni F, Taddei P, Prati C, et al. Properties of NeoMTA Plus and MTA Plus cements for endodontics. Int Endod J 2017;50(Suppl. 2):e83–e94. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12787.
Torabinejad M, Hong CU, McDonald F, et al. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 1995;21(7):349–353. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80967-2.
Sari S, Sönmez D. Internal resorption treated with mineral trioxide aggregate in a primary molar tooth: 18-month follow-up. J Endod 2006;32(1):69–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.018.
Tuna D, Olmez A. Clinical long-term evaluation of MTA as a direct pulp capping material in primary teeth. Int Endod J 2008;41(4):273–278. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01339.x.
Min KS, Park HJ, Lee SK, et al. Effect of mineral trioxide aggregate on dentin bridge formation and expression of dentin sialoprotein and heme oxygenase-1 in human dental pulp. J Endod 2008;34(6):666–670. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.03.009.
Bayrak S, Tunç ES, Saroðlu I, et al. Shear bond strengths of different adhesive systems to white mineral trioxide aggregate. Dent Mater J 2009;28(1):62–67. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.62
Tunç ES, Sönmez IS, Bayrak S, et al. The evaluation of bond strength of a composite and a compomer to white mineral trioxide aggregate with two different bonding systems. J Endod 2008;34(5):603–605. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.026.
Wang L, Sakai VT, Kawai ES, et al. Effect of adhesive systems associated with resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(2):110–116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01536.x.
Suresh K, Nagarathna J. Evaluation of shear bond strengths of FUJI II and FUJI IX with and without salivary contamination on deciduous molars – an in vitro study. Arch Sci Res 2011;1(3): 139–145.
Bodanezi A, Carvalho N, Silva D, et al. Immediate and delayed solubility of mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16(2):127–131. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-7757200 8000200009.
Govindaraju L, Neelakantan P, Gutmann JL. Effect of root canal irrigating solutions on the compressive strength of tricalcium silicate cements. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(2):567–571. DOI: 10.1007/s00784- 016-1922-0.
Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Primus CM, et al. Ion release, porosity, solubility, and bioactivity of MTA Plus tricalcium silicate. J Endod 2014;40(10):1632–1637. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.03.025.
Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization
Al-Sarheed MA. Evaluation of shear bond strength and SEM observation of all-in-one self-etching primer used for bonding of f issure sealants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7(2):9–16. https://doi:10.5005/jcdp-7-2-9
Ajami AA, Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin to three pulp capping agents. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2013;7(3):164–168. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2013.026.
Tulumbaci F, Almaz ME, Arikan V, et al. Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(5):292–296. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_97_17.