Limits...
Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Glass Ionomer Cements in Primary Teeth.

Murthy SS, Murthy GS - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Bottom Line: The predominant failure mode was cohesive.Amalgomer CR exhibited statistically significant higher SBS of 6.38 MPa to primary teeth and has better adhesion to the primary teeth compared to the other test materials and can be considered as a restorative material in pediatric dentistry.However, the results of this study should be corroborated with further investigation to reach a definitive conclusion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, AJ Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: This study aims to comparatively evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three commercially available glass ionomer cements - Miracle Mix (MM) (GC America Inc., Alsip, USA), Ketac Molar (KM) (3M Corp., Minnesota, USA) and amalgomer CR (AM) (Advanced Healthcare Ltd., Kent, England) in primary teeth and later examine the mode of the adhesive failure at the interface.

Materials and methods: Totally, 90 extracted sound primary molars were selected, and dentin on the buccal surface of crowns was exposed. Specimens were randomly assigned into three groups according to the restorative materials being tested. SBS tests were performed, and the obtained values were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests (P < 0.05). SBS mean values on were recorded in megapascals (MPa) and the mode of failure was assessed using a scanning electron microscope.

Results: SBS (in MPa) was - MM-5.39, KM-4.84, AM-6.38. The predominant failure mode was cohesive.

Conclusion: Amalgomer CR exhibited statistically significant higher SBS of 6.38 MPa to primary teeth and has better adhesion to the primary teeth compared to the other test materials and can be considered as a restorative material in pediatric dentistry. However, the results of this study should be corroborated with further investigation to reach a definitive conclusion.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Material placed using template
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588773&req=5

Figure 2: Material placed using template

Mentions: The teeth after selection were randomly assigned into three test groups of 30 each. The tooth samples were embedded in a polyvinylchloride pipe using cold cure acrylic (DPI, India) with buccal surface exposed, and color coded according to the material used with duct tape (Figure 1). Enamel on the buccal surface was removed using a high-speed diamond disc. The buccal surfaces were used for testing SBS because it showed the least variation and provided the most favorable conditions for testing an adhesive.10 The exposed dentinal surface was the ground flat, and the final surface was prepared with 320 grit wet silicon carbide paper to create a fresh surface. Surface was cleaned with pumice and rubber cup as it was found that polishing the dentin surface with pumice slurry reduced the layer of surface debris and did not affect the bond strength to dentine significantly.11 Teeth were rinsed and dried. The flattened dentin surface of all the specimens was treated with dentin conditioner for 20 s, rinsed thoroughly with water and dried using absorbent paper. All three restorative materials i.e., Miracle Mix (MM) (GC America Inc., Alsip, USA), Ketac Molar (3M Corp., Minnesota, USA) and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer amalgomer CR (Advanced Healthcare Ltd., Kent, England) were manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions and placed on the smoothened buccal surface of the respective samples using a template bearing a hole measuring 3 mm diameter and 2 mm depth and stabilized using scotch tape (3M Corp) (Figure 2). The excess material was removed, and the restoration was coated by dental varnish (Copalite, Cooley & Cooley Ltd., Tx, USA). All the samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h at room temperature and subjected to thermo cycling between 5° ± 2° and 55° ± 2° in a water bath for 100 cycles with a dwell time of 30 s.12


Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Glass Ionomer Cements in Primary Teeth.

Murthy SS, Murthy GS - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Material placed using template
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588773&req=5

Figure 2: Material placed using template
Mentions: The teeth after selection were randomly assigned into three test groups of 30 each. The tooth samples were embedded in a polyvinylchloride pipe using cold cure acrylic (DPI, India) with buccal surface exposed, and color coded according to the material used with duct tape (Figure 1). Enamel on the buccal surface was removed using a high-speed diamond disc. The buccal surfaces were used for testing SBS because it showed the least variation and provided the most favorable conditions for testing an adhesive.10 The exposed dentinal surface was the ground flat, and the final surface was prepared with 320 grit wet silicon carbide paper to create a fresh surface. Surface was cleaned with pumice and rubber cup as it was found that polishing the dentin surface with pumice slurry reduced the layer of surface debris and did not affect the bond strength to dentine significantly.11 Teeth were rinsed and dried. The flattened dentin surface of all the specimens was treated with dentin conditioner for 20 s, rinsed thoroughly with water and dried using absorbent paper. All three restorative materials i.e., Miracle Mix (MM) (GC America Inc., Alsip, USA), Ketac Molar (3M Corp., Minnesota, USA) and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer amalgomer CR (Advanced Healthcare Ltd., Kent, England) were manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions and placed on the smoothened buccal surface of the respective samples using a template bearing a hole measuring 3 mm diameter and 2 mm depth and stabilized using scotch tape (3M Corp) (Figure 2). The excess material was removed, and the restoration was coated by dental varnish (Copalite, Cooley & Cooley Ltd., Tx, USA). All the samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h at room temperature and subjected to thermo cycling between 5° ± 2° and 55° ± 2° in a water bath for 100 cycles with a dwell time of 30 s.12

Bottom Line: The predominant failure mode was cohesive.Amalgomer CR exhibited statistically significant higher SBS of 6.38 MPa to primary teeth and has better adhesion to the primary teeth compared to the other test materials and can be considered as a restorative material in pediatric dentistry.However, the results of this study should be corroborated with further investigation to reach a definitive conclusion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, AJ Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: This study aims to comparatively evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three commercially available glass ionomer cements - Miracle Mix (MM) (GC America Inc., Alsip, USA), Ketac Molar (KM) (3M Corp., Minnesota, USA) and amalgomer CR (AM) (Advanced Healthcare Ltd., Kent, England) in primary teeth and later examine the mode of the adhesive failure at the interface.

Materials and methods: Totally, 90 extracted sound primary molars were selected, and dentin on the buccal surface of crowns was exposed. Specimens were randomly assigned into three groups according to the restorative materials being tested. SBS tests were performed, and the obtained values were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests (P < 0.05). SBS mean values on were recorded in megapascals (MPa) and the mode of failure was assessed using a scanning electron microscope.

Results: SBS (in MPa) was - MM-5.39, KM-4.84, AM-6.38. The predominant failure mode was cohesive.

Conclusion: Amalgomer CR exhibited statistically significant higher SBS of 6.38 MPa to primary teeth and has better adhesion to the primary teeth compared to the other test materials and can be considered as a restorative material in pediatric dentistry. However, the results of this study should be corroborated with further investigation to reach a definitive conclusion.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus