SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF COMPOSITE AND COMPOMER TO BIODENTINE® APPLIED WITH VARIOUS BONDING AGENTS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 49 - 54, 15.01.2019

Sultan Keleş , Sera Şimşek Derelioğlu

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.522693

Cited By: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT

 

Aim: This study assessed the shear bond strength of a
nanohybrid composite resin and a compomer to Biodentine^® using three
bonding systems (total-etch one-bottle, one and two- step self-etch).

Material and
Methods: A total of ninety customized acrylic blocks were
prepared and 4-mm diameter × 2-mm deep holes were instrumented in all blocks.
The holes were filled with Biodentine^®. Dividing the blocks into 6
groups, Groups 1–3 had compomer placed
over the Biodentine^® with Clearfil SE Bond^®,
Prime&Bond NT^® universal testing machine, or Clearfil Universal
Bond^®, respectively; Groups 4–6 were restored with composite using
the same adhesives. A universal testing device determined the shear bond
strength, and the fractures were examined with a stereomicroscope. Obtained
data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests.

Results: The composite’s mean shear bond strength to Biodentine^®
was significantly higher (p <0.05) than the compomer’s. The bond strength
was found to be higher in using with the two-step self-etch adhesive system for
both restorative materials (p <0.05). The highest bond (14.10 ± 2.83 MPa)
was achieved in Group 4, while Group 2 was the lowest (8.25 ± 0.97 MPa).

Conclusion: The bonding to Biodentine^® was affected by
both the restorative material and adhesive system. Composite resins applied
with the different adhesive systems had higher shear bond strengths than did
compomer with the same adhesives. Additionally, the two-step self-etching
adhesive system was more likely to obtain high shear bond strength irrespective
of the restorative material (compomer or composite).

Keywords: Tricalcium silicate, composite resins, compomers, adhesives

BİODENTİNE’İN^® ÇEŞİTLİ
BAĞLAYICI AJANLARLA KOMPOMER VE  KOMPOZİTE
BAĞLANMA DAYANIMI: BİR İN-VİTRO ÇALIŞMA

ÖZ

 

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, Biodentine^®’in üç farklı çeşitteki dentin bağlayıcı
ajan (total etch, tek ve iki aşamalı self-etch adeziv sistemler) kullanılarak
bir nanohibrit kompozit rezine ve bir kompomere olan bağlanma dayanımı
değerlendirilmiştir.

Gereç ve
Yöntem: Doksan adet akrilik blok
oluşturuldu ve bu bloklarda her birinde çapı 4 mm, derinliği 2 mm olan
boşluklar oluşturuldu. Bütün boşluklar Biodentine^®’le dolduruldu.
Örnekler 6 gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1’de Biodentine^®’in üzerine Clearfil
SE Bond^® ile kompomer; Grup 2’de Biodentine^®’in üzerine
Prime&Bond NT^® ile kompomer; Grup 3’de Biodentine^®’in
üzerine Clearfil Universal Bond^® ile kompomer; Grup 4’de Biodentine^®’in
üzerine Clearfil SE Bond^® ile kompozit; Grup 5’de Biodentine^®’in
üzerine Prime&Bond NT^® ile kompozit; Grup 6’da Biodentine^®’in
üzerine Clearfil Universal Bond^® ile kompozit uygulandı. Bağlanma
dayanımı universal test cihazıyla belirlendi ve başarısızlığa uğramış yüzeyler
steromikroskopla incelendi. Veriler iki yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey Çoklu
Karşılaştırma testleriyle analiz edildi (a= 0.05).

Bulgular: Kompozit rezinin biodentine bağlanma dayanı- mı
kompomerden daha yüksek olarak bulunmuş- tur(p<0.05). İki aşamalı self-etch
adeziv system, her restoratif materyal için diğer adezivlerden daha yüksek
bağlanma dayanımı göstermiştir (p<0.05). Biodentine^® en yüksek
bağlanma dayanımı (14.10±2.83 MPa) G-4’den (kompozit ile Clearfil SE Bond^®)
ve en düşük bağlanma dayanımı (8.25±0.97 MPa) G-2’den (kompomer ile Prime&Bond
NT^® ) edilmiştir.

Sonuç: Biodentine^®’in bağlanma dayanımı kullanılan
bağlayıcı ajan ve restoratif materyalin tipinden etkilen- miştir. Farklı
çeşitteki bağlayıcı ajanlarla uygulanan kom- pozit rezin, Biodentine^®
kompomerden yüksek bağlanma dayanımı göstermiştir. İlaveten, iki aşamalı
self-etch adeziv sistem hem kompomer hem de kompozit rezinle uygulandığında Biodentine^®
yüksek bağlanma dayanımı elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Trikalsiyum silikat, kompozit rezinler, kompomerler, adezivler 

Keywords

Tricalcium silicate, composite resins, compomers

References

• 1. Bogen G, Chandler NP. Pulp preservation in immature permanent teeth. Endod Top 2010;23:131–52.
• 2. Rajasekharan S, Martens LC, Cauwels RGEC, Verbeeck RMH. BiodentineTM material characteristics and clinical applications: a review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014;15:147–158.
• 3. Gokcek M, Hazar BE. Vital pulpa tedavilerinde güncel yaklaşımlar. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2015;25:118-29.
• 4. Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin JC, Hartmann A. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth - a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:243–9.
• 5. Shayegan A, Jurysta C, Atash R, Petein M, Abbeele A Vanden. Biodentine used as a pulp-capping agent in primary pig teeth. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:202-8.
• 6. Cuadros-Fernández C, Lorente Rodríguez AI, Sáez-Martínez S, García-Binimelis J, About I, Mercadé M. Short-term treatment outcome of pulpotomies in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1639–45.
• 7. Nowicka A, Wilk G, Lipski M, Kołecki J, Buczkowska-Radlińska J. Tomographic Evaluation of reparative dentin formation after direct pulp capping with ca(oh)2, mta, biodentine, and dentin bonding system in human teeth. j Endod 2015;41:1234–40.
• 8. Prati C, Gandolfi MG. Calcium silicate bioactive cements: Biological perspectives and clinical applications. Dent Mater 2015;31:351–70.
• 9. Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18 :20–8.
• 10. Al-Ashou WMO, Nayif MM, Yahya MM. Shear bond strength of glass and resin based restorative materials to calcium based cement (Biodentine). Int J Enhanc Res Sci Technol Eng 2014;3:400–4.
• 11. Odabaş ME, Bani M, Tirali RE. Shear bond strengths of different adhesive systems to biodentine. Sci World J 2013;2013:1-5.
• 12. Kaup M, Dammann CH einrich, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Shear bond strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med 2015;11:14.
• 13. Trope M. Regenerative potential of dental pulp. J Endod 2008;30:206-10.
• 14. Pranov PD, Manoj C, Manvar NU, Anuja ID, Aditya PS JP. Comparative evaluation of effect of two different bonding systems on shear bond strength of composite and compomer to mineral trioxide aggregate: an ın vitro study. J Int Oral Heal 2015;7:93–5.
• 15. Cengiz E, Ulusoy N. Microshear bond strength of tri-calcium silicate-based cements to different restorative materials. J Adhes Dent 2016;18:1–7.
• 16. Aksoy S UM. Shear bond strength of universal adhesive systems to a bioactive dentin substitute (Biodentine®) at different time intervals. Stomatol Dis Sci 2017;1:166–22.
• 17. Çolak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Uzgur Z, Ercan E, Hamidi MM. The effect of different adhesives and setting times on bond strength between Biodentine and composite. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2016;14:217–22.
• 18. Hashem DF, Foxton R, Manoharan A, Watson TF, Banerjee A. The physical characteristics of resin composite-calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration. Dent Mater 2014;30:343–9.
• 19. Tosun G, Koyuturk AE, Sener Y, Sengun A. Bond strength of two total-etching bonding systems on caries-affected and sound primary teeth dentin. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:62–9.
• 20. El-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of compomers in primary and permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8:103–14.
• 21. Deepa V, Dhamaraju B, Bollu I, Balaji T. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to three different liners: TheraCal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement using universal adhesive: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:166-70.