The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials to Dentin: An In Vitro Study

Navya Kuchibhotla, Hrishikesh Sathyamoorthy, Srinath Balakrishnan, Naga Praneeth Somaraju, Aakansha Mohan, Kishore Ginjupalli, N. Sridhar

Keywords : Bonding agent, Composite, Dentin bonding, Shear bond strength

Citation Information : Kuchibhotla N, Sathyamoorthy H, Balakrishnan S, Somaraju NP, Mohan A, Ginjupalli K, Sridhar N. Effect of Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials to Dentin: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (3):245-249.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3662

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-04-2024

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


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study is to determine the difference in the shear bond strengths to dentin among dental composite (Filtek Z350®, 3M), compomer (Dyract Flow®, Dentsply) and Giomer (Beautifil®, Shofu) with 3MTM Single BondTM Universal Adhesive (SBU) (7th generation, self-etch, single solution adhesive) and AdperTM Single Bond 2 Adhesive (ASB) (5th generation, total-etch, two solution adhesive). Materials and methods: Sixty extracted human permanent teeth were collected, cleansed of debris, and placed in distilled water. The samples were segregated into two groups depicting the two bonding agents—AdperTM (ASB) and 3MTM Single Bond Universal (SBU) and sub-grouped into three groups depicting the three restorative materials (Composite, Giomer, and Compomer) used. Groups were respresented as follows: Group I—ASB + Composite; Group II—ASB + Giomer; Group III—ASB + Compomer; Group IV—SBU + Giomer; Group V—SBU + Compomer; Group VI—SBU + Composite. After applying the bonding agent as per the manufacturer's instructions, following which the restorative material was placed. A Universal Testing Machine (Instron 3366, UK) was employed to estimate the shear bond strength of the individual restorative material and shear bond strengths were calculated. Results: Composite bonded with SBU (group VI) displayed the greatest shear strength (11.16 ± 4.22 MPa). Moreover, Giomers and flowable compomers displayed better bond strengths with ASB compared with their SBU–bonded counterparts. Conclusion: These results mark the importance of careful material selection in clinical practice and the bonding agent used to achieve optimal bond strength and enhance the clinical longevity and durability of dental restorations. Clinical significance: From a clinical perspective, to avoid a compressive or a shear failure, it would be preferrable to use a direct composite restorative material with SBU (Single bond universal adhesive, 7th generation) to achieve maximum bond strength.

PDF Share
  1. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental Caries. Mol MedMicrobiol 2007;369(4):51–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2.
  2. Buonocore MG. A Simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J D Res 1955;34(6): 849–853. DOI: 10.1177/00220345550340060801.
  3. Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Kavrik F, et al. Fluoride release/recharging ability and bond strength of glass ionomer cements to sound and caries-affected dentin. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20(2):226–234. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.178917.
  4. Almuammar MF, Schulman A, Salama FS. Shear bond strength of six restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;25(3):221–225. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.25.3.r8g48vn51l46421m.
  5. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA, BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent Mater 1998;14(1):51–56. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(98) 00009-8.
  6. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Kapur RR, et al. Bonding BisGMA to dentin—A proof of concept for hydrophobic dentin bonding. J Dent Res 2007;86(11):1034–1039. DOI: 10.1177/154405910708601103.
  7. McLean DE, Meyers EJ, Guillory VL, et al. Enamel bond strength of new universal adhesive bonding agents. Oper Dent 2015;40(4):410–417. DOI: 10.2341/13-287-L.
  8. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, Van Dijken JWV. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55(4):255–260. DOI: 10.3109/00016359709115424.
  9. Martin R, Paul SJ, Heinz L, et al. Dentin bond strength of Dyract Cern. Am J Dent 1997;10(1):27–31. PMID: 9545917.
  10. Moodley D, Grobler SR. Compomers: adhesion and setting reactions. J South African Dent Assoc 2003;58(1):21, 24–28. PMID: 12705101.
  11. Shaw AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6-month data. J Dent 1998;26(4):355–359. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00016-x.
  12. Grobler SR, Rossouw RJ, Van Wyk Kotze TJ. A comparison of fluoride release from various dental materials. J Dent 1998;26(3):259–265. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00011-0.
  13. Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, et al. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: Results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(5):621–627. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0233.
  14. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials-Fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):343–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022.
  15. Tay FR, Smales RJ, Ngo H, et al. Effect of different conditioning protocols on adhesion of a GIC to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(2):153–167. PMID: 11570684.
  16. Cavalcanti AN, De Lima AF, Peris AR, et al. Effect of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19(2):90–98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00073.x.
  17. Kallenos TN, Al-Badawi E, White GE. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage in class I preparations using 5th, 6th and 7th generation composite bonding agents. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29(4):323–328. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.29.4.b51q018j100403p5.
  18. Ganesh AS. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength between fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth generation bonding agents: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2020;5:752–757. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_635_19.
  19. Sen D, Akgüngör G. Shear bond strengths of two composite core materials after using all-in-one and single-bottle dentin adhesives. J Prosthodont 2005;14(2):97–103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00018.x.
  20. Thanaratikul B, Santiwong B, Harnirattisai C. Self-etch or etch-and-rinse mode did not affect the microshear bond strength of a universal adhesive to primary dentin. Dent Mater J 2016;35(2):174–179. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-109.
  21. Arikatla SK, Chalasani U, Mandava J, et al. Interfacial adaptation and penetration depth of bioceramic endodontic sealers. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(4):373–377. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_64_18.
  22. Prabhakar A, Raj S, Raju O. Comparison of shear bond strength of composite, compomer and resin modified glass ionomer in primary and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2003;21(3):86–94. PMID: 14703213.
  23. Chitnis D, Dunn WJ, Gonzales DA. Comparison of in-vitro bond strengths between resin-modified glass ionomer, polyacid-modified composite resin, and giomer adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;129(3):330.e11–330.e3.3E16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.011.
  24. Sharma C, Kaur H, Aggarwal M, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement, composite and compomer in primary teeth: an in vitro study. SVOA Dentistry 2023;4(2):52–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58624/SVOADE.2023.04.0127.
  25. Vicente A, Bravo LA. Evaluation of different flowable materials for bonding brackets. Am J Dent 2009;22(2):111–114. PMID: 19626975.
  26. Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, et al. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J 2008;53(4):325–331. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00074.x.
  27. Ataol E, Ertan AA, Cehreli ZC. Sealing effectiveness of fissure sealants bonded with universal adhesive systems: Influence of different etching modes. J Adhes Sci Technol 2017;31(14):1626–1634. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54471.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.