Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to different tooth substrates; microshear bond strength and scanning electron microscope study

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) and ultramorphological characterization of glass ionomer (GI) cements; conventional GI cement (Fuji IX, CGI), resin modified GI (Fuji II LC, RMGI) and nano-ionomer (Ketac N100, NI) to enamel, dentin and cementum substrates. Materials and Methods: Forty-five lower molars were sectioned above the cemento-enamel junction. The occlusal surfaces were ground flat to obtain enamel and dentin substrates, meanwhile the cervical one-third of the root portion were utilized to evaluate the bonding efficacy to cementum substrate. Each substrate received microcylinders from the three tested materials; which were applied according to manufacturer instructions. μSBS was assessed using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test. Modes of failure were examined using stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. Interfacial analysis of the bonded specimens was carried out using environmental field emission scanning electron microscope. Results: Two-way ANOVA revealed that materials, substrates and their interaction had a statistically significant effect on the mean μSBS values at P values; <0.0001, 0.0108 and 0.0037 respectively. RMGI showed statistically significant the highest μSBS values to all examined tooth substrates. CGI and RMGI show substrate independent bonding efficiency, meanwhile; NI showed higher μSBS values to dentin and cementum compared to enamel. Conclusion: Despite technological development of GI materials, mainly the nano-particles use, better results have not been achieved for both investigations, when compared to RMGI, independent of tooth substrate.

Key words:

Cementum - conventional glass ionomer - dentin - enamel - microshear bond strength - nano-ionomer - resin-modified glass ionomer

 

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Inoue S, Van Meerbeek B, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. et al. Effect of remaining dentin thickness and the use of conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 445-55
• 2 Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Interdiffusion of a traditional glass ionomer cement into conditioned dentin. Am J Dent 1997; 10: 295-7
• 3 Sidhu SK, Watson TF. Resin-modified glass-ionomer materials. Part 1: Properties. Dent Update 1995; 22: 429-32
• 4 Khoroushi M, Karvandi TM, Sadeghi R. Effect of prewarming and/or delayed light activation on resin-modified glass ionomer bond strength to tooth structures. Oper Dent 2012; 37: 54-62
• 5 El-Askary FS, Nassif MS. The effect of the pre-conditioning step on the shear bond strength of nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer to dentin. Eur J Dent 2011; 5: 150-6
• 6 Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2006; 14 Suppl 3-9
• 7 Sterrett JD, Gerard DA, Johnston K, Torres MA. “Burnishing” demineralization of root surfaces: Ultrastructural surface characteristics. J Adhes Dent 2006; 8: 161-7
• 8 Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Microtensile bond strengths of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements to dentine using four conditioners. J Dent 2000; 28: 361-6
• 9 Yousry MM. Effect of re-etching oxalate-occluded dentin and enamel on bonding effectiveness of etch-and-rinse adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 31-8
• 10 Magni E, Ferrari M, Hickel R, Ilie N. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of dental adhesives and glass-ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 79-87
• 11 El-Askary FS, Nassif MS, Fawzy AS. Shear bond strength of glass-ionomer adhesive to dentin: Effect of smear layer thickness and different dentin conditioners. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 471-9
• 12 Elkassas DW, Fawzi EM, El Zohairy A. The effect of cavity disinfectants on the micro-shear bond strength of dentin adhesives. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 184-90
• 13 McDonough WG, Antonucci JM, He J, Shimada Y, Chiang MY, Schumacher GE. et al. A microshear test to measure bond strengths of dentin-polymer interfaces. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 3603-8
• 14 Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF. Failure of resin-modified glass-ionomers subjected to shear loading. J Dent 1999; 27: 373-81
• 15 Coutinho E, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Fukuda R, Snauwaert J, Nakayama Y. et al. Gel phase formation at resin-modified glass-ionomer/tooth interfaces. J Dent Res 2007; 86: 656-61
• 16 Tay FR, Sidhu SK, Watson TF, Pashley DH. Water-dependent interfacial transition zone in resin-modified glass-ionomer cement/dentin interfaces. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 644-9
• 17 Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 454-62
• 18 Rao KS, Reddy TP, Yugandhar G, Kumar BS, Reddy SN, Babu DA. Comparison of shear bond strength of resin reinforced chemical cure glass ionomer, conventional chemical cure glass ionomer and chemical cure composite resin in direct bonding systems: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14: 21-5
• 19 Pereira LC, Nunes MC, Dibb RG, Powers JM, Roulet JF, Navarro MF. Mechanical properties and bond strength of glass-ionomer cements. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4: 73-80
• 20 Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Neves AA, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A. et al. Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1347-57
• 21 Lin A, McIntyre NS, Davidson RD. Studies on the adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to dentin. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 1836-41
• 22 Gordan VV, Boyer D, Söderholm KJ. Enamel and dentine shear bond strength of two resin modified glass ionomers and two resin based adhesives. J Dent 1998; 26: 497-503
• 23 Cho BH, Dickens SH. Effects of the acetone content of single solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer thickness and the microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 107-15
• 24 Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Uno S. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: Bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 161-6
• 25 Uysal T, Yagci A, Uysal B, Akdogan G. Are nano-composites and nano-ionomers suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding?. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 78-82
• 26 Baldassarri M, Margolis HC, Beniash E. Compositional determinants of mechanical properties of enamel. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 645-9
• 27 Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Ozge BicerC. Influence of different conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of novel light-curing nano-ionomer restorative to enamel and dentin. Lasers Med Sci 2010; 25: 861-6
• 28 Ngo H, Mount GJ, Peters MC. A study of glass-ionomer cement and its interface with enamel and dentin using a low-temperature, high-resolution scanning electron microscopic technique. Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 63-9
• 29 Yip HK, Tay FR, Ngo HC, Smales RJ, Pashley DH. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to dentin. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 456-70
• 30 Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. An in vitro study on the maturation of conventional glass ionomer cements and their interface to dentin. Acta Biomater 2013; 9: 9529-37