scholarly journals Shear bond strength of composite resin to resin-modified glass ionomer cement using 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-free adhesive system

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 292
Author(s):  
SrishtiAnil Pandey ◽  
MohiniTukaram Lokhande ◽  
MeenalNitin Gulve ◽  
SwapnilJanardan Kolhe ◽  
GayatriBalasaheb Aher
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Materials to Eroded Enamel

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 700-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Hesse ◽  
Tathiane Lenzi ◽  
Camila Guglielmi ◽  
Ketlin Anacleto ◽  
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate the bond strength of one etch-and-rinse adhesive system and one resin-modified glass ionomer cement to sound and eroded enamel. Materials and methods Forty-eight bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal enamel surfaces. Half of the specimens were submitted to erosion challenge with pH-cycling model (3x/cola drink for 7 days) to induce eroded enamel. After that, all specimens were randomly assigned according to adhesive material: etch-andrinse adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 – 3M ESPE, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitro Fil LC – DFL, Brazil). The shear bond testing was performed after 24 hours water storage (0.5 mm/min). Shear bond strength means were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results Adper Single Bond 2 showed the highest bond strength value to eroded enamel (p < 0.05), whereas no difference was observed in sound enamel compared with Vitro Fil LC (p > 0.05). Conclusion Bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive system increases in eroded enamel, while no difference is verified to resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Clinical significance Adhesive materials may be used in eroded enamel without jeopardizing the bonding quality; however it is preferable to use etch-and-rinse adhesive system. How to cite this article Lenzi T, Hesse D, Guglielmi C, Anacleto K, Raggio DP. Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Materials to Eroded Enamel. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(4):700-703.

scholarly journals To Evaluate Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Theracal Lc, Biodentine, and Resin–Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Mode of Fracture: An In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (02) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Salil Mehra ◽  
Ashu K. Gupta ◽  
Bhanu Pratap Singh ◽  
Mandeep Kaur ◽  
Ashwath Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Introduction The aim of the current study was to evaluate shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to Theracal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) using universal adhesive and mode of fracture. Materials and Methods A total of 50 caries-free maxillary and mandibular molars extracted were taken; occlusal cavities were prepared, mounted in acrylic blocks, and divided into five groups based on the liner used. Group 1: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 12 minutes. Group 2: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 14 days. Group 3: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Group 4: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 7 days. Group 5: Theracal LC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Each sample was bonded to resin composite using universal adhesive. Shear bond strength analysis was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/min. Statistical Analysis  Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni test using SPSS version 22.0. Results and Conclusion Biodentine liner when bonded immediately to resin composite showed minimum shear bond strength. RMGIC when bonded to resin composite after 7 days showed maximum shear bond strength. Mode of fracture was predominantly cohesive in groups having Biodentine and Theracal LC as liner.

scholarly journals In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Three Self-adhesive Resin Cements and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Various Prosthodontic Substrates

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Sabatini ◽  
Manthan Patel ◽  
Eric D'Silva
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Setting Reaction ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY Objective To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three self-adhesive resin cements and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to different prosthodontic substrates. Materials and Methods The substrates base metal, noble metal, zirconia, ceramic, and resin composite were used for bonding with different cements (n=12). Specimens were placed in a bonding jig, which was filled with one of four cements (RelyX Unicem, Multilink Automix, Maxcem Elite, and FujiCEM Automix). Both light-polymerizing (LP) and self-polymerizing (SP) setting reactions were tested. Shear bond strength was measured at 15 minutes and 24 hours in a testing device at a test speed of 1 mm/min and expressed in MPa. A Student t-test and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate differences between setting reactions, between testing times, and among cements irrespective of other factors. Generalized linear regression model and Tukey tests were used for multifactorial analysis. Results Significantly higher mean SBS were demonstrated for LP mode relative to SP mode (p&lt;0.001) and for 24 hours relative to 15 minutes (p&lt;0.001). Multifactorial analysis revealed that all factors (cement, substrate, and setting reaction) and all their interactions had a significant effect on the bond strength (p&lt;0.001). Resin showed significantly higher SBS than other substrates when bonded to RelyX Unicem and Multilink Automix in LP mode (p&lt;0.05). Overall, FujiCEM demonstrated significantly lower SBS than the three self-adhesive resin cements (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions Overall, higher bond strengths were demonstrated for LP relative to SP mode, 24 hours relative to 15 minutes and self-adhesive resin cements compared to the RMGICs. Bond strengths also varied depending on the substrate, indicating that selection of luting cement should be partially dictated by the substrate and the setting reaction.

scholarly journals Glass Ionomer Cements can be used for Bonding Orthodontic Brackets After Cancer Radiation Treatment?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Cristina Santin ◽  
Alexandra Mussolino de Queiroz ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb ◽  
Harley Francisco de Oliveira ◽  
Paulo Nelson Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment present more susceptibility to dental caries and the use of an orthodontic device increases this risk factor due to biofilm accumulation around the brackets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength to irradiated permanent teeth of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement due to the fluoride release capacity of these materials. Ninety prepared human premolars were divided into 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding material and use or not of radiation: CR: Transbond XT composite resin; RMGIC: Fuji Ortho LC conventional glass ionomer cement; GIC: Ketac Cem Easymix resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The groups were irradiated (I) or non-irradiated (NI) prior to bracket bonding. The specimens were subjected to a fractioned radiation dose of 2 Gy over 5 consecutive days for 6 weeks. After the radiotherapy, the brackets were bonded on the specimens with Transbond XT, Fuji Ortho LC and Ketac Cem Easymix. After 24 h, the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test. The image of enamel surface (classified by Adhesive Remnant Index - ARI) was also evaluated and its frequency was checked among groups/subgroups. The shear bond strength variable was evaluated with ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test. GIC group showed the lowest adhesion values among the groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among non-irradiated and irradiated groups (p>0.05). As for the ARI, the CR-I group showed the highest material retention on enamel surface among the irradiated groups. RMGIC group showed the highest values for shear bond strength and presented ARI acceptable for clinical practices.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiana Poorzandpoush ◽  
Mehdi Shahrabi ◽  
Alireza Heidari ◽  
Zohre Sadat Hosseinipour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Failure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: A significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document