The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2007 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Shear Bond Strength of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Bonded to Different Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials

Nasrien Z. Ateyah, Nadia Malek Taher

Citation Information : Ateyah NZ, Taher NM. Shear Bond Strength of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Bonded to Different Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (2):25-34.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-2-25

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-02-2007

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to determine in vitro the shear bond strength (MPa) and the type of bond failure when resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) was bonded with different tooth-colored restorative materials.

Methods and Materials

The RMGIC tested was Fuji II LC (FL) and the tooth-colored restorative materials used were composite resin Point-4 (P4), Compomer Dyract AP (DY), and Ormocere Admira (AD). A total number of 60 FL specimens were prepared using Teflon molds. The specimens were divided into six equal groups. Each group of ten specimens was bonded to a tested tooth-colored restorative material as follows: Group I - etched FL bonded to P4; Group II - non-etched FL bonded to P4; Group III - etched FL bonded to DY; Group IV - non-etched FL bonded to DY; Group V - etched FL bonded to AD; and Group VI - non-etched FL bonded to AD. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. The shear bond strength was measured in a universal testing machine, and the fractured surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope.

Results

The results of the shear bond strength indicated the lowest mean value (14.46 MPa) was in Group III, and this was significantly different from the values of other groups (p<0.05). However, Groups V and VI recorded the highest mean values (24.5 MPa and 28.39 MPa) which were significantly different (p<0.05) when compared to other groups. Groups I, II, and IV showed no significant difference with mean values of 20.06, 19.99, and 20.1 MPa which were significantly different from other groups (p<0.05).

Conclusion

AD showed the highest shear bond strength to RMGIC. All groups demonstrated a cohesive failure in FL except for Group IV where a cohesive failure in DY was recorded. AD showed good shear bond strength when laminated with FL.

Citation

Taher NM, Ateyah NZ. Shear Bond Strength of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Bonded to Different Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:025-034.


PDF Share
  1. The lamination technique with glass ionomer. JPDA. 2003;5:79-183.
  2. The use of glass ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentin. Brit Dent J. 1985;158:410-414.
  3. Dental composite/glass ionomers: the materials. Adv Dent Res. 1992;6:44-49.
  4. Shear bond strength of chemical and light-cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites. Aust Dent J. 1998;43:81-86.
  5. Flexural strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements and their bond strength to dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996;54:55-58.
  6. Factors influencing bond strengths between unetched glass ionomers and resins Oper Dent. 1991;16:90-95.
  7. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials – the continuum. Compendium. 1996;17:731-748.
  8. A clinical trial of the glass ionomer cement-composite resin “sandwich technique” in class II cavities in permanent premolar and molar teeth. Quintessence Int. 1990;21:507-512.
  9. Properties of a glass ionomer/resin composite hybrid material. Dent Mater. 1989;5:355-358.
  10. Dentin shear bond strength of compomers and composites. Dent Mater. 2000;16:15-19.
  11. The suitability of Packable resin-based composite for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;123:39-645.
  12. Effect of the photo-activation method on polymerization shrinkage of restorative composites Oper Dent. 2002;27:192-198.
  13. Resin modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1995;8:59-67.
  14. Direct and indirect adhesive restorative materials: A review Am J Dent. 2000;13:35D-40D.
  15. Shear bond strength of a composite resin to an etched glass ionomer. Dent Mater. 1985;1:127-128.
  16. Tensile bond strength between glass ionomer cements and composite resin. JADA. 1987;114:167-172.
  17. The effect of various surface treatments on the shear strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cement. J Dent. 1989;17:28-32.
  18. Effect of etching glass-ionomer cements on bond strength to composite resin. J Dent Res. 1989;68:1082-1087.
  19. Bond strength of composites to hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent. 1996;21:147-152.
  20. A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentin bonding systems to primary and permanent dentin Dent Mater. 2002;18:239-245.
  21. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int. 1994;25:587.
  22. FDI Commission Project. Int Dent J. 1998;48:3.
  23. Hoang E. Dyract compomer: Comparison of total etch vs. no etch technique. Gen Dent. 1998;46:604-606.
  24. Comparison of pulse activation vs.conventional light-curing on marginal adaptation of a compomer conditioned using a total –etch or a self-etch technique. Dent Mater 2002;18:36-48.
  25. Bond strength of composite to enamel and dentin using Prime & Bond 2.1 Oper Dent. 24:51-56.
  26. Bond strength of compomers to dentin using acidic primers. Am J Dent. 1999;12:235-242.
  27. Effect of the bonding agent on the bond strength between glass ionomer cement and composite resin Quintessence Int. 1989; 20:31-35.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.