Abstract
Purpose
The success of restorative materials is largely dependent on their capacity to adhere to the tooth structure and withstand the various forces present in the oral cavity. So, the aim of present study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of Type IX Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC), Zirconomer, and Gold Label Hybrid GIC in primary molars.
Methods
Thirty primary molars were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The molars were polished to provide a flat dentin surface after being inserted in auto polymerizing acrylic resin. The samples were randomly divided into three groups, equally and were bonded to GIC. On the dentin surface, restoration cylinders were made using a plastic mould that had an internal diameter and height of 5 mm and 3 mm, respectively. The cement was manipulated according to the manufacturer’s directions through the plastic mould. Then, the samples were stored at room temperature for 10 days to mimic oral conditions. The Universal Testing Machine was used to test SBS. One-way ANOVA and the post hoc Tukey test were used to statistically assess the collected data.
Results
A statistically significant difference was found in all three groups (p < 0.01), with Zirconomer demonstrating highest SBS, followed by Type IX GIC and Gold Label Hybrid GIC.
Conclusion
The SBS value of Zirconomer was better when compared to Type IX GIC and Gold Label Hybrid GIC.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data available on request from the corresponding author.
References
Chalissery VP, Marwah N, Almuhaiza M, AlZailai AM, Chalisserry EP, Bhandi SH, et al. Study of the mechanical properties of the novel zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(5):394–8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1861.
El Wakeel AM, Elkassas DW, Yousry MM. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to different tooth substrates; microSBSand scanning electron microscope study. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(2):176–82.
Heba E, Hussein Y, Wedad E. SBS of bioactive dental restorative materials to dentin. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2020;19(11):15–25. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1911051525.
Knight GM, McIntyre JM, Mulyani. The effect of silver fluoride and potassium iodide on the bond strength of auto cure glass ionomer cement to dentine. Aust Dent J. 2006;51(1):42–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00399.x.
Kumari A, Singh N. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin SBS of three restorative materials. Biomater Investig Dent. 2022;9(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2022.2033623.
Lucas ME, Arita K, Nishino M. Toughness, bonding and fluoride-release properties of hydroxyapatite-added glass ionomer cement. Biomater. 2003;24(21):3787–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00260-6.
Mahler DB. An analysis of stresses in a dental amalgam restoration. J Dent Res. 1958;37(3):516–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345580370032301.
Malhotra S, Bhullar KK, Kaur S, Malhotra M, Kaur R, Handa A. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and flexural strength of GC Gold Hybrid, GIC conventional and resin-modified glassionomer cement. J Pharm Bioall Sci. 2022;14(5):214–6.
Manuja N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Nagpal R. Comparative evaluation of SBS of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedo Prev Dent. 2011;29(1):7–13. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.79913.
Meral E, Baseren NM. SBS and microle-akage of novel glass-ionomer cements: an in vitro study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22(4):566–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_543_18.
Mitra SB, Lee CY, Bui HT, et al. Long-term adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009;25(4):459–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.09.008.
Naidu J, Tambakad PB. Comparative evaluation of SBS and flexural strength of new zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement with commonly used glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment: an invitro study. J Oper Dent Endod. 2018;3(2):83–91. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10047-0062.
Nanavati K, Katge F, Chimata VK, Pradhan D, Kamble A, Patil D. Comparative evaluation of SBS of bioactive restorative material, zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement and conventional glass ionomer cement to the dentinal surface of primary molars: an in vitro study. J Dent (shiraz). 2021;22(4):260–6. https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2021.87115.1230.
Nujella SBP, Choudhary MT, Reddy SP, et al. Comparison of SBS of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(1):22–6.
Sapkale K, Sane R, Ahmed SA. Comparative evaluation of dentin bond strength of zirconomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement–an in vitro study. Int J Sci Res. 2020;9(1):954–9. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20204186.
Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF. Failure of resin-modified glass-ionomers subjected to shear loading. J Dent. 1999;27(5):373–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00057-8.
Singh P, Jha M, Arora K, Bhat D, Awchat K, Goyal G, Mitra M. Comparison of SBS of packable glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement, compomer and giomer to primary and permanent teeth- an in vitro study. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2021;10(19):1429–35. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2021/301.
Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, Sibal GK. Comparative evaluation of SBS of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):192–6. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1362.
Verma V, Mathur S, Sachdev V, Singh D. Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement Type IX and Cention N. J Conserv Dent. 2020;23(6):550–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_109_19.
Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry: the glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132(4):133–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810.
Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, com-pomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 2008;53(4):325–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00074.x.
Yap AU, Pek YS, Kumar RA, Cheang P, Khor KA. Experimental studies on a new bioactive material: HAIonomer cements. Biomater. 2002;23(3):955–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(01)00208-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Agrawal, I., Katge, F., Patil, D. et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three different glass ionomer cement (conventional, zirconium-reinforced and advanced glass hybrid) in primary molars: an in vitro study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 24, 491–497 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-023-00817-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-023-00817-y