Article Data

  • Views 906
  • Dowloads 144

Original Research

Open Access

Shear bond strength of six restorative materials

  • Majed F. Almuammar1,*,
  • Allen Schulman2
  • Fouad S. Salama3

1pedodontist, King Fahad Hospital / National Guard, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2Department of Dental Materials Science, New York University, Dental School, NY, USA

3Pediatric Dentistry Postgraduate Program, King Saud University, College of Dentistry, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.25.3.r8g48vn51l46421m Vol.25,Issue 3,July 2001 pp.221-225

Published: 01 July 2001

*Corresponding Author(s): Majed F. Almuammar E-mail: XXX

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength of a conventional glassionomer

cement, a resin modified glass-ionomer, a composite resin and three compomer restorative

materials. Dentin of the occlusal surfaces from sixty extracted human permanent molars were prepared

for shear bond strength testing. The specimens were randomly divided into six groups of 10 each. Dentinal

surfaces were treated according to the instructions of manufacturers for each material. Each restorative

material was placed inside nylon cylinders 2 mm high with an internal diameter of 3 mm, which were

placed perpendicular to dentin surfaces. Shear bond strengths were determined using an Universal Testing

Machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a compression mode. Conventional glass-ionomer,

Ketac-Molar aplicap showed the lowest mean shear bond strength 3.77 ± 1.76 (X ± SD MPa) and the

composite resin, Heliomolar showed the highest mean shear bond strength 16.54 ± 1.65 while the mean

bond strength of Fuji II LC was 9.55 ± 1.06. The shear bond strengths of compomer restorative materials

were 12.83 ± 1.42, 10.64 ± 1.42 and 11.19 ± 1.19 for Compoglass, Hytac and Dyract respectively.

ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in the mean shear bond strengths of all groups

(P<0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the three compomer materials

(P>0.5). Ketac-Molar and composite resin showed statistically significant difference (P<0.0005). The

mode of fracture varied between materials. It is concluded that the compomer restorative materials show

higher shear bond strength than conventional glass-ionomer and resin modified glass-ionomer, but less

than composite resin. The fracture mode is not related to the shear bond strengths values.


Cite and Share

Majed F. Almuammar,Allen Schulman,Fouad S. Salama. Shear bond strength of six restorative materials. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2001. 25(3);221-225.

References

1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. The glass ionomer cement: A new translu-cent dental filling material. J Appl Chem Biotechnol 21: 313, 1971.

2. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. Br Dent J 2: 133-135, 1972.

3. Davison CL, Mjor IA.Advances in glass-ionomer cements. Quin-tessence Publishing Co, Inc, Chicago; 1999.

4. Hirota K, Akahane S, Tosaki S, Tamiya Y, Tomioka K. Thermal expansion coefficient of glass-ionomer cements (abstract # 225). J Dent Res 67 (Spec Iss):141, 1988.

5. Suzuki Y, Tosaki S, Hirota K. Physical properties of glass-ionomer for restorative filling (abstract # 1282). J Dent Res 74: 561, 1995.

6. Yoshii E, Kanaoka T, Hirota K. Biological evaluation of a new light cured glass-ionomer cement for restorative filling. Forth World Biomaterials Congress; 1992.

7. Swift EJ, Pawlus MA, Vargas MA. Shear bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 20: 138-143, 1995.

8. Sidhu SK. Marginal contraction gap formation of light-cured glass ionomers. Am J Dent 7: 115-118, 1994.

9. Salama FS, Riad MI, Abdel Megid FY. Microleakage and mar-ginal gap formation of glass ionomer resin restorations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 20: 31-37, 1995.

10. Carvalho RM, Yoshiyama M, Horner JA, Pashley DH. Bonding mechanism of Variglass to dentin. Am J Dent 8: 253-58, 1995.

11. Dyract®:A single-component compomer. Dyract Manual Version II, De Trey Dentsply, pp 4-29, 1994.

12. Barnes DM, Blank LN, Gingell JC, Barnes CA. A clinical evalu-ation of Dyract light cured compomer restorative (abstract # 2205). J Dent Res 75 (Spec Iss): 293, 1996.

13. Manhart J, Chen HY, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Bond strength of a compomer to dentin under various surface conditions. Clin Oral Investig 99: 175-180, 1999.

14. Peutzfeldt A. Compomers and glass ionomers: bond strength to dentin and mechanical properties. Am J Dent 9: 259-263, 1996.

15. Smith DC. Composition and characteristics of glass ionomer cements. J Am Dent Assc 120: 20-23, 1990.

16. McCaghren RA, Retief DH, Bradley EL, Denys FR. Shear bond strength of light-cured glass ionomer to enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 69: 40-45, 1990.

17. Levartovsky S, Goldstein GR, Georgescu M. Shear bond strength of several new core materials. J Prosth Dent 75: 154-158, 1996.

18. Burgess JO, Burkett L. Shear bond strength of four glass ionomers to enamel and dentin (abstract # 2276). J Dent Res 72 (Spec Iss): 388, 1993.

19. Pawlus M, Swift E, Vargus M. Shear bond strengths of resin ionomer restorative materials (abstract # 1812). J Dent Res 73 (Spec Iss): 328, 1994.

20. Bell RB, Barkmeier W. Shear bond strength of glass ionomer restoratives and liners (abstract # 1181). J Dent Res 73 (Spec Iss): 328, 1994.

21. Burgess J, Norling B, Summitt J. Resin ionomer restorative mate-rials: The new generation. J Esthet Dent 6: 207-215, 1994.

22. Futatsuki M, Nakata M. In vitro marginal leakage of class II composite resin restorations by thermal cycling. J Clin Pediatr Dent 18: 191-196, 1994.

23. Sidhu SK, Watson TF. Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Am J Dent 8: 59-67, 1995.

24. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evalua-tion of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc 126: 41-49, 1995.

25. Erickson RL, Glasspoole EA. Bonding to tooth structure: a com-parison of glass-ionomer and composite-resin systems. J Esthet Dent 6: 227-243, 1994.

26. Craig RG, Power JM, Walaha JC. Dental materials-properties and manipulation. 7 th ed, Mosby, St. Louis, 2000.

27. Friedl KH, Powers JM, Hiller K A. Influence of different factors on bond strength of hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 20: 74-80, 1995.

28. Mitra S. Curing reactions of glass ionomer materials. Proceed-ings of the 2nd international symposium on glass-ionomers, Philadelphia, 1994.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top