Effect of acid and laser etching on shear bond strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements to composite resin
- 367 Downloads
Success in sandwich technique procedures can be achieved through an acceptable bond between the materials. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 35% phosphoric acid and Er,Cr:YSGG laser on shear bond strength of conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to composite resin in sandwich technique. Sixty-six specimens were prepared from each type of glass-ionomer cements and divided into three treatment groups as follows: without pretreatment, acid etching by 35% phosphoric acid for 15 s, and 1-W Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment for 15 s with a 600-μm-diameter tip aligned perpendicular to the target area at a distance of 1 mm from the surface. Energy density of laser irradiation was 17.7 J/cm2. Two specimens in each group were prepared for evaluation under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) after surface treatment and the remainder underwent bonding procedure with a bonding agent and composite resin. Then the shear bond strength was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Two-factor analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey test showed that the cement type, surface treatment method, and the interaction of these two factors significantly affect the shear bond strength between glass-ionomer cements and composite resin (p < 0.05). Surface treatment with phosphoric acid or Er,Cr:YSGG laser increased the shear bond strength of GIC to composite resin; however, in RMGIC only laser etching resulted in significantly higher bond strength. These findings were supported by SEM results. The fracture mode was evaluated under a stereomicroscope at ×20.
KeywordsEr,Cr:YSGG laser Phosphoric acid Sandwich technique Surface treatment
We thank Dr. Majid Abdolrahimi for the revision of the English manuscript. This project was carried out by the financial support from the Deputy Dean of Research at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences.
- 2.Roberson TM (2006) Fundamentals in tooth preparation. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr (eds) Sturdevant’s art and science of operative dentistry, 5th edn. Mosby, Inc, St. Louis, pp 281–321Google Scholar
- 3.Hilton TJ, Broome JC (2006) Direct posterior esthetic restorations. In: Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS (eds) Fundamentals of operative dentistry, a contemporary approach, 3rd edn. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc, Chicago, pp 289–339Google Scholar
- 6.Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Ishikiriama A, da Silva e Souza Junior MH, Delazari RC (1997) Bond strength between resin composite and etched and non-etched glass ionomer. Braz Dent J 8:73-78Google Scholar
- 15.Waterlase, Biolase, WWW.Biolase.com
- 24.Hibst R (2002) Lasers for caries removal and cavity preparation: State of the art and future directions. J Oral Laser Applications 2:203–212Google Scholar
- 31.Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL (2006) Craig's restorative dental materials. Mosby Elsevier Inc, MissouriGoogle Scholar