Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tensile bond characteristics between composite resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer restoratives used in the open-sandwich technique

  • Original Scientific Article
  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The clinical success of large class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement/composite resin (RMGIC/CR) ‘open-sandwich’ restorations in permanent or primary molars may be influenced by certain bonding parameters.

Aim

To examine in vitro the effect of placing/curing mode on the RMGIC/CR bond strength.

Design

Two restoratives, a CR (Z250), a RMGIC (Vitremer) and a bonding agent (Adper Single Bond 2), all of 3M ESPE, were used for preparing five groups of seven specimen sticks each. The bond between the two restorative materials at the stick centre was created in the three test groups by: (A) 1-step placing RMGIC in contact with CR, then photocuring; (B) 2-step RMGIC placing/curing, then CR placement/curing; (C) 3-step RMGIC placing/curing, bonding agent placing/curing, CR placing/curing. Control groups consisted of sticks made of CR alone (D, positive) and RMGIC alone (E, negative). The specimens were subjected to tensile stress measurements in an Instron dynamometer and examined by scanning electron microscope for type of failure.

Statistics

Tensile bond strength, tensile strain and elastic modulus differences were examined with one-way ANOVA and Tukey test.

Results

Among experimental groups, Group C exhibited significantly higher tensile strength (MPa) means (A = 12.11 ± 4.72, B = 15.69 ± 5.18, C = 19.08 ± 4.05) and significantly higher tensile strain (%) means (A = 0.50 ± 0.11, B = 0.64 ± 0.19, C = 0.98 ± 0.24), compared to Group A, at p = 0.05. Group D had significantly higher tensile strength and strain than all other groups. No statistically significant differences were observed in the elastic modulus. The use of bonding agent (Group C) resulted in absence of adhesive failures as seen by SEM.

Conclusion

The use of bonding agent improved the CR/RMGIC bond by tensile strength and strain tests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW, Kieri C. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years. Am J Dent. 2004;17:43–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:325–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: five-year results. J Dent. 2009;37:198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick RG, Woolford MJ. A comparison of the shear bond strengths to a resin composite of two conventional and two resin-modified glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements. J Dent. 1993;21:111–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8:14–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa CA, Ribeiro AP, Giro EM, et al. Pulp response after application of two resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) in deep cavities of prepared human teeth. Dent Mater. 2011;27:158–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donly JK, Sequra A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. JADA. 1999;130:1459–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah CS, Orton VG, Collard SM. Shear bond strength of chemical and light-cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites. Aust Dent J. 1998;43:81–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forss H, Widström E. The post-amalgam era: a selection of materials and their longevity in the primary and young permanent dentitions. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2003;13:158–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilie N, Hickel R, Watts DC. Spatial and cure-time distribution of dynamic-mechanical properties of a dimethacrylate nano-composite. Dent Mater. 2009;25:411–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerby RE, Knobloch L. The relative shear bond strength of visible light-curing and chemically curing glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Quintessence Int. 1992;23:641–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsanos N, Arizos S. Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011;12:170–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koubi S, Raskin A, Dejou J, et al. Effect of dual cure composite as dentine substitute on the marginal integrity of Class II open-sandwich restorations. Oper Dent. 2010;35:165–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin L, Coval M, Geiger SB. Cross-sectional radiographic survey of amalgam and resin-based composite posterior restorations. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:511–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Liu Y, Liu Y, et al. Flexure strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements and their bond strength to dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996;54:55–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mount GJ. The tensile strength of the union between various glass ionomer cements and various composite resins. Aust Dent J. 1989;34:136–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, et al. Effect of acid and laser etching on shear bond strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27:305–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oilo G, Um CM. Bond strength of glass-ionomer cement and composite resin combinations. Quintessence Int. 1992;23:633–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oilo G. Bond strength testing–what does it mean? Int Dent J. 1993;43:492–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, et al. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010;20:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rathore M, Singh A, Pant VA. The dental amalgam toxicity fear: a myth or actuality. Toxicol Int. 2012;19(2):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue—a review. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12:343–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater. 2010;26:7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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;8:25–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijken JW, Kieri C, Carlén M. Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res. 1999;78:1319–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vilkinis V, Hörsted-Bindslev P, Baelum V. Two-year evaluation of Class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest. 2000;4:133–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler G, Beech DR. Bonding of a composite restorative material to etched glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 1988;33:313–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yengopal V, Harneker SY, Patel N, Siegfried N. Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;15(2):CD004483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011;12:5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2009;31:63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

3M ESPE is thanked for kindly supplying the materials used in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    S. Fragkou, D. Tsiantou & N. Kotsanos

  2. Laboratory of Organic Chemical Technology, School of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    A. Nikolaidis & D. Achilias

Authors
  1. S. Fragkou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Nikolaidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Tsiantou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Achilias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Kotsanos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Fragkou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fragkou, S., Nikolaidis, A., Tsiantou, D. et al. 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 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0055-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0055-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation