The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement with ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus

Nimish Tyagi, Chandrakar Chaman, Siddharth Anand, Anjali Dhull, Ravi Prakash, Himanshu Tomar

Keywords : MTA Angelus, ProRoot MTA, Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Shear bond strength, Universal testing machine

Citation Information : Tyagi N, Chaman C, Anand S, Dhull A, Prakash R, Tomar H. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement with ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (1):35-40.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3611

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement with two different types of mineral trioxide aggregate at different time intervals. Materials and methods: A total of 80 cylindrical blocks were prepared using a self-cure acrylic resin with a central cavity of 4 mm internal diameter and 2 mm height. The prepared samples were randomly divided into two groups (n = 40 each) according to the type of MTA cements used (ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus). Two groups were further sub-divided into four sub-groups of 10 samples each according to the different time intervals. ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus were placed in the prepared cavity and a wet cotton pellet was placed over the filled cavity. A hollow plastic tube was placed over the MTA surface and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) was placed into the hollow plastic tube and light-cured (Spectrum 800, Dentsply Caulk Milford, DE, USA) according to the time intervals decided. After light curing the plastic tubes were removed carefully and the specimens were stored at 37°C and 100% humidity for 24 hours to encourage setting of MTA. The specimens were mounted in a universal testing machine (ADMET) and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min was applied to each specimen by using a knife-edge blade until the bond between the MTA and RMGIC failed. The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA, post hoc Tukey's t-test and Fisher's t-test and p-value ≤ 0.5 was considered significant. Results: For both ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus there was no statistically significant difference between 45 minutes and 24 hours (p-value ≥ 0.8). For ProRoot MTA, shear bond strength value at 10 minutes were significantly lower than 45 minutes and 24 hours group. However, for MTA Angelus, shear bond strength value at 10 minute was not significantly different from 45 minutes group (p-value ≥ 0.3). For both ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus shear bond strength value at 0 minute were the least and were significantly lower than 10 minutes, 45 minutes, and 24 hours, respectively (p-value ≥ 0.000). Conclusion: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement can be layered over MTA Angelus after it is allowed to set for 10 minutes. However, ProRoot MTA should be allowed to set for at least 45 minutes before the placement of RMGIC to achieve better shear bond strength. Clinical significance: Due to the variety of types of mineral trioxide aggregate cements available in dentistry, it is justifiable to emphasize on different time intervals as it may affect the shear bond strength of restorative cements. Such information is pivotal for the clinicians while using mineral aggregate-based cements that receive forces from the condensation of restorative materials or occlusion, as the compressive strength may be affected due to different time intervals.

  1. Tawil PZ, Duggan DJ, Galicia JC. MTA. A clinical review. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2015;36(4):247–264. PMID: 25821936.
  2. Atabek D, Sillelioglu H, Olmez A. Bond strength of adhesive systems to mineral trioxide aggregate with different time intervals. J Endod 2012;38:1288–1292. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.004.
  3. Cervino G, Laino L, D'Amico C, et al. Mineral trioxide aggregate applications in endodontics: A review. Eur J Dent 2020;14(4): 683–691. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713073.
  4. Choi Y, Park SJ, Lee SH, et al. Biological effects and washout resistance of a newly developed fast-setting pozzolan cement. J Endod 2013;39(4):467–472. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.023.
  5. Pushpalatha C, Dhareshwar V, Sowmya SV, et al. Modified mineral trioxide aggregate-a versatile dental material: An insight on applications and newer advancements. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2022;10:941826. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.941826.
  6. Santos AD, Araujo EB, Yukimitu K, et al. Setting time and thermal expansion of two endodontic cements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106(3):77–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.04.021.
  7. Ha WN, Shakibaie F, Kahler B, et al. Deconvolution of the particle size distribution of ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus. Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica 2016;2(1):7–11. DOI: 10.3109/23337931.2015.1129611.
  8. Kazemipoor M, Azizi N, Farahat F. Evaluation of microhardness of mineral trioxide aggregate after immediate placement of different coronal restorations: An in vitro study. J Dent (Tehran) 2018;15(2): 116–122. PMID: 29971129.
  9. Gulati S, Shenoy VU, Margasahayam SV. Comparison of shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer to conditioned and unconditioned mineral trioxide aggregate surface: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(5):440–443. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.139832.
  10. Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schafer E, et al. Shear bond strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med 2015;11:14. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-015-0071-z.
  11. De-Deus G, de Souza MC, Sergio Fidel RA, et al. Negligible expression of arsenic in some commercially available brands of Portland cement and mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2009;35(6):887–890. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.003.
  12. Patel N, Patel K, Baba SM, et al. Comparing gray and white mineral trioxide aggregate as a repair material for furcation perforation: An in vitro dye extraction study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(10):ZC70– ZC73. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9517.5046.
  13. Patil A, Aggarwal S, Kumar T, et al. The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(3):254–258. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.181943.
  14. Bhatty JI. A review of the application of thermal analysis to cement-admixture systems. Thermochimica Acta 1991;189:313–350. DOI: 10.1016/0040-6031(91)87128-J.
  15. Camilleri J. Characterization of hydration products of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2008;41(5):408–417. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01370.x.
  16. Grangeon S, Claret F, Roosz C, et al. Structure of nanocrystalline calcium silicate hydrates: Insights from X-ray diffraction, synchrotron X-ray absorption and nuclear magnetic resonance. J Appl Crystallogr 2016;49(Pt 3):771–783. DOI: 10.1107/S1600576716003885.
  17. Porter ML, Bertó A, Primus CM, et al. Physical and chemical properties of new-generation endodontic materials. J Endod 2010;36(3): 524–528. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.012.
  18. Parirokh M, Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, et al. A comparative study of white and grey mineral trioxide aggregate as pulp capping agents in dog's teeth. Dent Traumatol 2005;21(3):150–154. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2005.00311.x.
  19. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M, et al. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate's composition with Portland cements and a new endodontic cement. J Endod 2009;35(2):243–250. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.026.
  20. Shahi S, Fakhri E, Yavari H, et al. Portland Cement: An overview as a root repair material. Biomed Res Int 2022;2022:3314912. DOI: 10.1155/2022/3314912.
  21. Chembri M, Peplow G, Camilleri J. Analyses of heavy metals in mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. J Endod 2010;36(7): 1210–1215. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.011.
  22. Akbari M, Rouhani A, Samiee S, et al. Effect of dentin bonding agent on the prevention of tooth discoloration produced by mineral trioxide aggregate. Int J Dent 2012;2012:563203. DOI: 10.1155/2012/563203.
  23. de Vasconcelos BC, Bernardes RA, Cruz SM, et al. Evaluation of pH and calcium ion release of new root-end filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108(1):135–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.02.026.
  24. Hungaro Duarte MA, Minotti PG, Rodrigues CT, et al. Effect of different radiopacifying agents on the physicochemical properties of white Portland cement and white mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2012;38(3):394–397. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.005.
  25. Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: A comprehensive literature review–Part I: chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod 2010;36(1):16–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.006.
  26. Kayahan MB, Nekoofar MH, Kazandağ M, et al. Effect of acid-etching procedure on selected physical properties of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2009;42(11):1004–1014. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01610.x.
  27. Candan M, Altinay Karaca FK, Öznurhan F. Evaluation of the Shear bond strength of immediate and delayed restorations of various calcium silicate-based materials with fiber-reinforced composite resin materials. Polymers (Basel) 2023;15(19):3971. DOI: 10.3390/polym15193971.
  28. Yesilyurt C, Ceyhanli KT, Kedıcı Alp C, et al. In vitro bonding effectiveness of new self-adhering flowable composite to calcium silicate-based material. Dent Mater J 2014;33(3):319–324. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2013-211.
  29. Keerthivasan A, Rajkumar K, Vidhya S, et al. Effect of polydopamine on bonding characteristics of mineral trioxide aggregate to resin composite. Eur Endod J 2023;8(3):207–214. DOI: 10.14744/eej.2023.73745.
  30. Chang SW. Chemical characteristics of mineral trioxide aggregate and its hydration reaction. J Resto Dentistry and Endod 2012; 37:188–193. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2012.37.4.188.
  31. Alqahtani AS, Sulimany AM, Alayad AS, et al. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of four bioceramic materials with different restorative materials and timings. Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 2022;15(13): 4668. DOI: 10.3390/ma15134668.
  32. Balla S, Ventateshbabu N, Nandini S, et al. An in-vitro study to assess the setting and surface crazing of conventional glass ionomer cement when layered over partially set mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2008;34:478–480. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.01.020.
  33. Nandini S, Balla S, Kandaswamy D. Influence of glass ionomer cement on the interface and setting reaction of mineral trioxide aggregate when used as furcal repair material using laser Raman spectroscopic analysis. J Endod 2007;33:167–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.010.
  34. Ansari ZJ, Ghasemi A, Norozi H, et al. Microhardness of calcium-enriched mixture cement and covering glass ionomers after different time periods of application. Iranian Endod J 2022;17(2):67–71. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v17i2.37929.
  35. Yesilyurt C, Yildirim T, Taşdemir T, et al. Shear bond strength of conventional glass ionomer cements bound to mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2009;35(10):1381–1383. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.003.
  36. Eid AA, Komabayashi T, Watanabe E, et al. Characterization of the mineral trioxide aggregate-resin modified glass ionomer cement interface in different setting conditions. J Endod 2012;38(8): 1126–1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.04.013.
  37. Falakaloğlu S, Yeniçeri Özata M, Plotino G. Micro-shear bond strength of different calcium silicate materials to bulk-fill composite. PeerJ 2023;11:e15183. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15183.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.