Comparison of the shear bond strength in Giomer and resin-modified glass ionomer in class V lesions

INTRODUCTION: There are several cosmetic, restorative materials to restore non-carious Cervical Lesions (NCCLs). The aim of this study was to specify and compare the shear bond strength of Giomer and resin-modified glass ionomer in Class V lesions so that whether Giomer showed a better shear bond strength, it could be used instead of RMGI to restore NCCLs because of its better esthetic. METHOD: ology: 20 maxillary and 20 mandibular intact premolars were collected. Each group of 20 samples was divided into two 10-tooth subgroups of A and B. A class V preparation was made on the buccal surface of the samples with 2*2*3 mm dimensions using a diamond bur. Also, the crossing path of the universal machine chisel was prepped with 2 mm depth up to incisal edge. For group A, after applying BeautiBond and curing it, Beautifil II Giomer was placed in nylon cylinders and the cylinders were placed in the middle cervical region and cured for 20 s. For group B, 1 spoon powder of Fuji II RMGI was mixed with two drops of its liquid and transported to nylon cylinders and placed in the middle cervical region, then cured for 20 s. The nylon cylinders were removed from all 40 samples. Then, all teeth were thermocycled and then tested using a universal machine with the force of 20 MPa and the speed of 1 mm/min until they fractured to assess their shear bond strength. The obtained data was analyzed using SPSS v.26. The significance level was considered 0.05. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Giomer (4.97 ± 2.36) and the resin-modified glass ionomer (3.41 ± 2.71) groups as regards their shear strength (p = 0.059). Likewise, there was no significant difference in shear bond strength between Giomer and RMGI groups as regards jaw type (P = 0.326). CONCLUSION: The paper suggests that Giomer and resin-modified glass ionomer groups did not differ significantly in terms of their shear bond strength and that both can be utilized to treat Class V lesions. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the shear bond strength in terms of jaw type.