Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems
- 313 Downloads
This study investigated the shear bond strength (SBS) and interface between a resin composite and a new high-viscous glass ionomer cement (HV-GIC), a HV-GIC, a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC), a bulk-fill flowable composite, and a regular flowable composite bonded with various adhesive systems.
Methods and materials
A resin composite (Filtek Z350) was bonded to a new HV-GIC (EQUIA Forte Fil) using various adhesive systems, including a universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode (Scotchbond Universal), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond 1-XT), a one-step self-etch adhesive (Optibond All-in-one) tested also after silane application (Monobond Plus), and a coating material (EQUIA Forte Coat). The resin composite was also bonded to a HV-GIC (Fuji IX GP), a RM-GIC (Fuji II LC), a bulk-fill flowable composite (SDR), and a regular flowable composite (Tetric Evo Flow) with the universal adhesive in self-etch mode (Scotchbond Universal). Two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc test was used to investigate the difference in SBS. Failures were analyzed by chi-square test. Bonding interfaces were examined by environmental scanning electron microscopy (E-SEM).
SBS to EQUIA Forte Fil was significantly lower with Scotchbond 1-XT than with all other adhesive systems. By using Scotchbond Universal with the self-etch technique, the SBS to EQUIA Forte Fil was significantly higher than the SBS to Fuji IX GP and significantly lower than the SBS to Fuji II LC, SDR, and Tetric Evo Flow. E-SEM images showed an intimate contact at all interfaces examined.
EQUIA Forte Fil showed satisfactory SBS and interfaces with all adhesives tested.
Bonding between the resin composite and HV-GIC can be achieved using a universal adhesive in self-etch mode, an easy-to-use adhesive system.
KeywordsHigh-viscous glass ionomer cement Universal adhesive Sandwich technique Proximal box elevation Shear bond strength Environmental scanning electron microscopy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 4.Fragkou S, Nikolaidis A, Tsiantou D, Achilias D, Kotsanos N (2013) Tensile bond characteristics between composite resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer restoratives used in the open-sandwich technique. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 14:239–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0055-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW, Kieri C (2004) Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years. Am J Dent 17:43–50Google Scholar
- 6.Dietschi D, Spreafico R (1998) Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthetic Dent 10:47–54 quiz 56Google Scholar
- 8.Ilgenstein I, Zitzmann NU, Bühler J, Wegehaupt FJ, Attin T, Weiger R, Krastl G (2015) Influence of proximal box elevation on the marginal quality and fracture behavior of root-filled molars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic or composite onlays. Clin Oral Investig 19:1021–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1325-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Boruziniat A, Gharaee S, Sarraf Shirazi A, Majidinia S, Vatanpour M (2016) Evaluation of the efficacy of flowable composite as lining material on microleakage of composite resin restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int 47:93–101. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a35260 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Dippold C, Vosen VE, Naumann M, Jablonski-Momeni A, Frankenberger R (2012) Effect of proximal box elevation with resin composite on marginal quality of resin composite inlays in vitro. J Dent 40:1068–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Khoroushi M, Keshani F (2013) A review of glass-ionomers: from conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 10:411–420Google Scholar
- 26.Lee Y, Kim JH, Woo JS, Yi YA, Hwang JY, Seo DG (2015) Analysis of self-adhesive resin cement microshear bond strength on leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic with/without pure silane primer or universal adhesive surface treatment. Biomed Res Int 2015:361893. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/361893 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 31.Wexler G, Beech DR (1988) Bonding of a composite restorative material to etched glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J 33:313–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1988.tb04185.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kandaswamy D, Rajan KJ, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I (2012) Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to glass-ionomer cement using self-etching bonding agents with different pH: in vitro study. J Conserv Dent JCD 15:27–31. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.92602 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Panahandeh N, Torabzadeh H, Ghassemi A, Mahdian M, Akbarzadeh Bagheban A, Moayyedi S (2015) Effect of bonding application time on bond strength of composite resin to glass ionomer cement. J Dent (Tehran) 12:859–867Google Scholar
- 49.Knight GM, McIntyre JM, Mulyani (2006) Bond strengths between composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement using the co-cure technique. Aust Dent J 51:175–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00423.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar