Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 239–245 | Cite as

Tensile bond characteristics between composite resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer restoratives used in the open-sandwich technique

  • S. FragkouEmail author
  • A. Nikolaidis
  • D. Tsiantou
  • D. Achilias
  • N. Kotsanos
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Background

The clinical success of large class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement/composite resin (RMGIC/CR) ‘open-sandwich’ restorations in permanent or primary molars may be influenced by certain bonding parameters.

Aim

To examine in vitro the effect of placing/curing mode on the RMGIC/CR bond strength.

Design

Two restoratives, a CR (Z250), a RMGIC (Vitremer) and a bonding agent (Adper Single Bond 2), all of 3M ESPE, were used for preparing five groups of seven specimen sticks each. The bond between the two restorative materials at the stick centre was created in the three test groups by: (A) 1-step placing RMGIC in contact with CR, then photocuring; (B) 2-step RMGIC placing/curing, then CR placement/curing; (C) 3-step RMGIC placing/curing, bonding agent placing/curing, CR placing/curing. Control groups consisted of sticks made of CR alone (D, positive) and RMGIC alone (E, negative). The specimens were subjected to tensile stress measurements in an Instron dynamometer and examined by scanning electron microscope for type of failure.

Statistics

Tensile bond strength, tensile strain and elastic modulus differences were examined with one-way ANOVA and Tukey test.

Results

Among experimental groups, Group C exhibited significantly higher tensile strength (MPa) means (A = 12.11 ± 4.72, B = 15.69 ± 5.18, C = 19.08 ± 4.05) and significantly higher tensile strain (%) means (A = 0.50 ± 0.11, B = 0.64 ± 0.19, C = 0.98 ± 0.24), compared to Group A, at p = 0.05. Group D had significantly higher tensile strength and strain than all other groups. No statistically significant differences were observed in the elastic modulus. The use of bonding agent (Group C) resulted in absence of adhesive failures as seen by SEM.

Conclusion

The use of bonding agent improved the CR/RMGIC bond by tensile strength and strain tests.

Keywords

Tensile bond strength Tensile strain Open-sandwich restoration Resin-modified glass-ionomer Composite resin 

Notes

Acknowledgments

3M ESPE is thanked for kindly supplying the materials used in the study.

References

  1. Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW, Kieri C. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years. Am J Dent. 2004;17:43–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:325–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: five-year results. J Dent. 2009;37:198–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chadwick RG, Woolford MJ. A comparison of the shear bond strengths to a resin composite of two conventional and two resin-modified glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements. J Dent. 1993;21:111–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8:14–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa CA, Ribeiro AP, Giro EM, et al. Pulp response after application of two resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) in deep cavities of prepared human teeth. Dent Mater. 2011;27:158–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donly JK, Sequra A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. JADA. 1999;130:1459–65.Google Scholar
  8. Farah CS, Orton VG, Collard SM. Shear bond strength of chemical and light-cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites. Aust Dent J. 1998;43:81–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forss H, Widström E. The post-amalgam era: a selection of materials and their longevity in the primary and young permanent dentitions. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2003;13:158–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ilie N, Hickel R, Watts DC. Spatial and cure-time distribution of dynamic-mechanical properties of a dimethacrylate nano-composite. Dent Mater. 2009;25:411–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerby RE, Knobloch L. The relative shear bond strength of visible light-curing and chemically curing glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Quintessence Int. 1992;23:641–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotsanos N, Arizos S. Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011;12:170–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koubi S, Raskin A, Dejou J, et al. Effect of dual cure composite as dentine substitute on the marginal integrity of Class II open-sandwich restorations. Oper Dent. 2010;35:165–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin L, Coval M, Geiger SB. Cross-sectional radiographic survey of amalgam and resin-based composite posterior restorations. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:511–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Li J, Liu Y, Liu Y, et al. Flexure strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements and their bond strength to dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996;54:55–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mount GJ. The tensile strength of the union between various glass ionomer cements and various composite resins. Aust Dent J. 1989;34:136–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, et al. Effect of acid and laser etching on shear bond strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27:305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oilo G, Um CM. Bond strength of glass-ionomer cement and composite resin combinations. Quintessence Int. 1992;23:633–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Oilo G. Bond strength testing–what does it mean? Int Dent J. 1993;43:492–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, et al. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010;20:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rathore M, Singh A, Pant VA. The dental amalgam toxicity fear: a myth or actuality. Toxicol Int. 2012;19(2):81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue—a review. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12:343–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater. 2010;26:7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taher NM, Ateyah NZ. Shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement bonded to different tooth-colored restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:25–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. van Dijken JW, Kieri C, Carlén M. Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res. 1999;78:1319–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vilkinis V, Hörsted-Bindslev P, Baelum V. Two-year evaluation of Class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest. 2000;4:133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wexler G, Beech DR. Bonding of a composite restorative material to etched glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 1988;33:313–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yengopal V, Harneker SY, Patel N, Siegfried N. Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;15(2):CD004483.Google Scholar
  29. Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011;12:5–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2009;31:63.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Fragkou
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Nikolaidis
    • 2
  • D. Tsiantou
    • 1
  • D. Achilias
    • 2
  • N. Kotsanos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dental FacultyAristotle University of Thessaloniki, University CampusThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Laboratory of Organic Chemical Technology, School of ChemistryAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations