Cargando…

Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture

CONTEXT: It is necessary to have a proper bond between pulp-capping agent and composite materials to maintain effective coronal seal. AIMS: This study aims to compare the shear bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to calcium...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elmi, Mehrshad, Ehsani, Maryam, Esmaeili, Behnaz, Khafri, Soraya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080171/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30122815
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_146_18
_version_ 1783345425215913984
author Elmi, Mehrshad
Ehsani, Maryam
Esmaeili, Behnaz
Khafri, Soraya
author_facet Elmi, Mehrshad
Ehsani, Maryam
Esmaeili, Behnaz
Khafri, Soraya
author_sort Elmi, Mehrshad
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: It is necessary to have a proper bond between pulp-capping agent and composite materials to maintain effective coronal seal. AIMS: This study aims to compare the shear bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to calcium-enriched mixture (CEM). METHODS: In this study, 30 acrylic blocks (with a central hole 4 mm diameter and 2 mm height) were prepared and filled with CEM. The blocks were divided into three groups: single bond2 (SB) with Filtek Z250, single bond universal (SBU) with Filtek Z250, and RMGI. The restorative materials were placed on the CEM, and shear bond strength was measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and games Howell tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULT: Bond strength of both composite groups to CEM showed significantly higher values than RMGI-CEM group (both P < 0.001). The type of the adhesive system( total etch or universal) had no significant effect on the bond strength of composite to CEM (P > 0.05). All the failures in composite groups were as cohesive in CEM and in RMGI group was as adhesive. CONCLUSIONS: Shear bond strength of composite resin to CEM cement was higher than RMGI irrespective of the type of the adhesive system. The universal bonding system is recommended for bonding of composite to CEM for ease of use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6080171
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60801712018-08-17 Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture Elmi, Mehrshad Ehsani, Maryam Esmaeili, Behnaz Khafri, Soraya J Conserv Dent Original Article CONTEXT: It is necessary to have a proper bond between pulp-capping agent and composite materials to maintain effective coronal seal. AIMS: This study aims to compare the shear bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to calcium-enriched mixture (CEM). METHODS: In this study, 30 acrylic blocks (with a central hole 4 mm diameter and 2 mm height) were prepared and filled with CEM. The blocks were divided into three groups: single bond2 (SB) with Filtek Z250, single bond universal (SBU) with Filtek Z250, and RMGI. The restorative materials were placed on the CEM, and shear bond strength was measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and games Howell tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULT: Bond strength of both composite groups to CEM showed significantly higher values than RMGI-CEM group (both P < 0.001). The type of the adhesive system( total etch or universal) had no significant effect on the bond strength of composite to CEM (P > 0.05). All the failures in composite groups were as cohesive in CEM and in RMGI group was as adhesive. CONCLUSIONS: Shear bond strength of composite resin to CEM cement was higher than RMGI irrespective of the type of the adhesive system. The universal bonding system is recommended for bonding of composite to CEM for ease of use. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6080171/ /pubmed/30122815 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_146_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Elmi, Mehrshad
Ehsani, Maryam
Esmaeili, Behnaz
Khafri, Soraya
Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
title Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
title_full Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
title_fullStr Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
title_short Comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
title_sort comparison of bond strength of a composite resin with two different adhesive systems and a resin modified glass ionomer to calcium enriched mixture
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080171/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30122815
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_146_18
work_keys_str_mv AT elmimehrshad comparisonofbondstrengthofacompositeresinwithtwodifferentadhesivesystemsandaresinmodifiedglassionomertocalciumenrichedmixture
AT ehsanimaryam comparisonofbondstrengthofacompositeresinwithtwodifferentadhesivesystemsandaresinmodifiedglassionomertocalciumenrichedmixture
AT esmaeilibehnaz comparisonofbondstrengthofacompositeresinwithtwodifferentadhesivesystemsandaresinmodifiedglassionomertocalciumenrichedmixture
AT khafrisoraya comparisonofbondstrengthofacompositeresinwithtwodifferentadhesivesystemsandaresinmodifiedglassionomertocalciumenrichedmixture