International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2020 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Shear and Flexural Strength of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Adhesive Liner in Sandwich Restorations

Muneera Alsobaiei, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan

Keywords : Composite resin, Glass-ionomer sandwich, Laminate technique, Restorative strength, Restorative technique

Citation Information : Alsobaiei M, Sivaramakrishnan G. Shear and Flexural Strength of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Adhesive Liner in Sandwich Restorations. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020; 10 (3):97-101.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1281

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Adhesive liners used in sandwich restorations between glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and composite should have sufficient strength and bonding properties. Resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) exhibit good bonding to the tooth structure, GIC, and composite. They also exhibit good mechanical and bonding characteristics compared with other unfilled resins. Hence, the present study aimed to compare the shear and flexural bond strength of sandwich restorations when resin-modified glass-ionomer liners are used sandwiching conventional GIC and composite restorations compared with unfilled resins under artificial saliva in vitro. Materials and methods: Eighty-eight specimens prepared following specific criteria for flexural (44 specimens) and shear strength (44 specimens) testing was divided into two groups consisting of RMGI and unfilled resin bonding agent sandwich restorations. Three-point bending test and the Instron universal load testing machine were used for flexural and shear testing, respectively. SPSS v.18 was used to analyze the raw data obtained and comparison between the groups. Selected samples were prepared for a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) investigation, to observe the interfaces between the GIC and composite, as well as to provide a detailed analysis of the modes of failure in the specimens. Results: Sandwich restorations using resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) adhesive liner showed a statistically significant increase in shear bond forces and shear strength of the final restoration compared with an unfilled resin. There was no significant difference in the flexural strength of forces between the two groups. Scanning electron microscopy results revealed cohesive failure within the GIC as a major cause of failure of these restorations. Conclusion: Resin-modified glass ionomer liners show promising results in terms of shear and flexural strength of the sandwich restoration compared with unfilled resins.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent 2015;37(2):116–124.
  2. Mount GJ. Clinical requirements for a successful ‘sandwich’–dentine to glass ionomer cement to composite resin. Aust Dent J 1989;34(3):259–265. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1989.tb00680.x.
  3. Sharafeddin F, Choobineh MM. Assessment of the shear bond strength between nanofilled composite bonded to glass-ionomer cement using self-etch adhesive with different pHs and total-etch adhesive. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17(1):1–6.
  4. Alonso V, Darriba IL, Caserío M. Retrospective evaluation of posterior composite resin sandwich restorations with Herculite XRV: 18-year findings. Quintessence Int 2017;48(2):93–101. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a37386.
  5. Sharafeddin F, Moradian M, Motamedi M. Evaluation of shear bond strength of methacrylate- and silorane-based composite resin bonded to resin-modified glass-ionomer containing micro- and nano-hydroxyapatite. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17(2):142–148.
  6. Czarnecka B, Kruszelnicki A, Kao A, et al. Adhesion of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements may affect the integrity of tooth structure in the open sandwich technique. Dent Mater 2014;30(12):e301–e305. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.008.
  7. Boruziniat A, Gharaei S. Bond strength between composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer using different adhesive systems and curing techniques. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):150–154. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128055.
  8. Gyanani HC, Chhabra N, Shah NC, et al. Microleakage in sub-gingival class II preparations restored using two different liners for open sandwich technique supplemented with or without ultrasonic agitation: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(3):ZC70–ZC73. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18120.7479.
  9. Fragkou S, Nikolaidis A, Tsiantou D, et al. Tensile bond characteristics between composite resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer restoratives used in the open-sandwich technique. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2013;14(4):239–245. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-013-0055-2.
  10. 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 cements to composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(2):305–311. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-010-0868-8.
  11. Jaberi Ansari Z, Panahandeh N, Tabatabaei Shafiei ZS, et al. Effect of self-etching adhesives on the bond strength of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11(6):680–686.
  12. Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Oskoee PA, et al. Effects of surface treatments of conventional glass-ionomer on shear bond strength to giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(6):700–705.
  13. McKnight-Hanes C, Whitford GM. Fluoride release from three glass ionomer materials and the effects of varnishing with or without finishing. Caries Res 1992;26(5):345–350. DOI: 10.1159/000261466.
  14. Kirsten GA, Rached RN, Mazur RF, et al. Effect of open-sandwich vs. adhesive restorative techniques on enamel and dentine demineralization: an in situ study. J Dent 2013;41(10):872–880. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.07.003.
  15. Francisconi LF, Scaffa PM, de Barros VR, et al. Glass ionomer cements and their role in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(5):364–369. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000500003.
  16. 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(2):81–86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1998.tb06095.x.
  17. Bona AD, Pinzetta C, Rosa V. Effect of acid etching of glass ionomer cement surface on the microleakage of sandwich restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(3):230–234. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572007000300014.
  18. Becci AC, Benetti MD, Domingues NB, et al. Bond strength of a composite resin to glass ionomer cements using different adhesive systems. Rev Odontol UNESP 2017;46(4):214–219. DOI: 10.1590/1807-2577.01717.
  19. Gupta R, Mahajan S. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to GIC using different adhesives. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(1):ZC27–ZC29. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/10224.5462.
  20. Shimazu K, Karibe H, Ogata K. Effect of artificial saliva contamination on adhesion of dental restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2014;33(4):545–550. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2014-007.
  21. Gopikrishna V, Abarajithan M, Krithikadatta J, et al. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to GIC using three different adhesives. Oper Dent 2009;34(4):467–471. DOI: 10.2341/08-009-L.
  22. Arora V, Kundabala M, Parolia A, et al. Comparison of the shear bond strength of RMGIC to a resin composite using different adhesive systems: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(2):80–83. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.66716.
  23. Kasraie S, Shokripour M, Safari M. Evaluation of micro-shear bond strength of resin modified glass-ionomer to composite resins using various bonding systems. J Conserv Dent 2013;16(6):550–554. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.120956.
  24. Zhang Y, Burrow MF, Palamara JE, et al. Bonding to glass ionomer cements using resin-based adhesives. Oper Dent 2011;36(6):618–625. DOI: 10.2341/10-140-L.
  25. 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(2):111–116. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(93)90158-m.
  26. 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(9):641–644.
  27. 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(1):55–58. DOI: 10.3109/00016359609003510.
  28. Burrow MF, Kitasako Y, Thomas CD, et al. Comparison of enamel and dentin microshear bond strengths of a two-step self-etching priming system with five all-in-one systems. Oper Dent 2008;33(4):456–460. DOI: 10.2341/07-125.
  29. Osorio R, Monticelli F, Moreira MA, et al. Enamel-resin bond durability of self-etch and etch & rinse adhesives. Am J Dent 2009;22(6):371–375.
  30. Osorio R, Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MCG, et al. Resistance of ten contemporary adhesives to resin-dentine bond degradation. J Dent 2008;36(2):163–169. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.12.002.
  31. Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Mechanical behavior of glass ionomer cements affected by long-term storage in water. Dent Mater 1994;10(1):37–44. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(94)90020-5.
  32. Santerre JP, Shajii L, Leung BW. Relation of dental composite formulations to their degradation and the release of hydrolyzed polymeric-resin-derived products. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2001;12(2):136–151. DOI: 10.1177/10454411010120020401.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.