Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the shear bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins (NCR) and microhybrid composite resins (MCR) placed over three different dentin replacement materials: SDR—Smart Dentin Replacement™, Biodentine™, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC).
Methods and materials: Thirty acrylic blocks (50 mm × 20 mm × 15 mm), each with a central hole, were prepared, which were randomly distributed into three equal groups, each corresponding to one of the three dentin replacement materials—SDR, Biodentine, and RMGIC. The central holes were then filled with these materials. After setting and application of the respective adhesive system, the specimens were further divided into two subgroups each of NCR or MCR. The respective composite material was then applied to the dentin replacement materials using a cylindrical plastic matrix. Shear bond strength was tested on a universal testing machine (Instron 3366), at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute.
Results: SDR attained consistently higher shear bond strength (means: 21.18, 22.19 Mpa) values than RMGIC and Biodentine, with both types of composite resins (MCR and NCR), which were statistically significant (p <0.001). When considering the means of the shear bond strength measurements obtained by the two types of the composite resin, no significant difference (p <0.05) was found between them with all three types of dentin replacement materials.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the bond strengths achieved between MCR and NCR to the different dentine replacement materials. Hence, either type of composite resin may be expected to achieve similar bond strengths to the underlying substrate. SDR™ is a suitable dentine replacement material for placing below a composite resin veneer as it can achieve immediate higher bond strengths.
Clinical significance: SDR can be used as an effective bulk fill material in deep dentinal caries which can be capped with composite resins.
Croll T, Nicholson J. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):423–429.
Pamir T, Sen BH, Evcin O. Effects of etching and adhesive applications on the bond strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2012;20(6):636–642. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000600008.
Do Nascimento AB, Fontana UF, Teixeira HM, et al. Biocompatibility of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement applied as pulp capping in human teeth. Am J Dent 2000;13(1):28–34. PMID: 11763899.
Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013;38(6):618–625. DOI: 10.2341/12-395-L.
Bachoo IK, Seymour D, Brunton P. A biocompatible and bioactive replacement for dentine: is this a reality? The properties and uses of a novel calcium-based cement. Br Dent J 2013;214(2):E5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.57.
Research and development department Septodont, Biodentine™; Active Biosilicate Technology™. Internal data; scientific file, 2009.
Camilleri J. Characterization and hydration kinetics of tricalcium silicate cement for use as a dental biomaterial. Dent Mater 2011;27:836–844. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.010.
Koubi S, Elmerini H, Koubi G, et al. Quantitative evaluation by glucose diffusion of microleakage in aged calcium silicate-based open-sandwich restorations. Int J Dent 2012;2012:105863. DOI: 10.1155/2012/105863.
Raju VG, Venumbaka NR, Mungara J, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of tricalcium silicate-based restorative material and radioopaque posterior glass ionomer restorative cement in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):304–310. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140952.
McLean JW, Powis DR, Prosser HJ, et al. The use of glass-ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentine. Br Dent J 1985;158(11):410–414. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4805621.
Croll TP. Repair of defective Class I composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1990;21(9):695–698. PMID: 2094873.
Croll TP. Light-hardened Class I glass-ionomer–resin cement restoration of a permanent molar. Quintessence Int 1993;24(2): 109–113. PMID: 8511261.
Leinfelder KF. Changing restorative traditions: the use of bases and liners. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125(1):65–67. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1994.0016.
McLean JW. Dentinal bonding agents versus glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1996;27(10):659–667. PMID: 9180401.
Lin CP, Douglas WH, Mitra SB, et al. Fracture toughness of dental cements using the short rod method. J Dent Res [Abstract #74] 1992;71(special issue):524. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12412956/.
Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1994;10(2):78–82. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(94)90044-2.
Douglas WH, Lin CP. Strength of the new systems. In Hunt PR, editor. Glass ionomers: the next generation. [Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Glass Ionomers.] Philadelphia: International Symposia in Dentistry, PC; 1994. p. 209–216.
De Souza Costa CA, Aparecida Giro EM, Lopes do Nascimento AB, et al. Short-term evaluation of the pulpo-dentin complex response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and a bonding agent applied in deep cavities. Dent Mater 2003;19(8):739–746. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00021-6.
Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Shinya A, et al. Influence of increment thickness on light transmission, degree of conversion and micro hardness of bulk fill composites. Odontology 2016;104(3):291–297. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-015-0227-0.
Lempel E, Czibulya Z, Kovács B, et al. Degree of conversion and BisGMA, TEGDMA, UDMA elution from flowable bulk fill composites. Int J Mol Sci 2016;17(5):732. DOI: 10.3390/ijms17050732.
Pereira JC, D'Alpino PH, Lopes LG, et al. Evaluation of internal adaptation of class V resin composite restorations using three techniques of polymerization. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(1):49–54. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572007000100011.
Placido E, Meira JBC, Lima RG, et al. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: a finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater 2007;23(9):1086–1092. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.10.002.
Roeder L, Pereira PNR, Yamamoto T, et al. Spotlight on bond strength testing—unraveling the complexities. Dent Mater 2011;27(12): 1197–1203. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.396.
Salza U, Bockb T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue–a review. J Adhes Dent 2010;12(5):343–371. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a19741.
Burke FJ, Hussain A, Nolan L, et al. Methods used in dentine bonding tests: an analysis of 102 investigations on bond strength. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2008;16(4):158–165. PMID: 19177726.
Hashem DF, Foxton R, Manoharan A, et al. The physical characteristics of resin composite–calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration. Dent Mater 2014;30(3):343–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.010.
Camile SF. Shear bond strength of chemical and light-cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites. Aust Dent J 1998;43(2):81–86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1998.tb06095.x.
Costa SB, de Oliveira RVD, Viégas Montenegro R, et al. Bond strength evaluation of composite resin bonded to glass ionomer cements after different periods of setting. Int J Adhes Adhes 2013;47:146–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.08.010.