Evaluation on Shear Bond Strength of Different Glass Ionomer and Hydroxy Apatite Cements Used in Ossiculoplasty

Year 2015, Volume: 32 Issue: 1, 23 - 29, 01.01.2015

M. Tayyar Kalcıoğlu İsmail Hakkı Uzun Meral Arslan Malkoç Muhammet Yalçın Fatih Mehmet Hanege Ayşe Tuba Öğreten

Abstract

Background: Glass ionomer cements (GIC) have been widely used in dentistry for many years. In recent years, GIC have also been used for ossiculoplasty. The bond strength of GIC used in ossiculoplasty and the way they may change over the years in the cementation area are being questioned. The bonding strength of the substance may be of importance for long-term outcomes. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the bond strength of different GIC on ossicles. Study Design: In vitro study. Methods: Twenty ossicles were obtained from patients who had undergone ear surgery. All specimens were randomly divided into four subgroups. All specimens were inserted into a specially designed apparatus for shear bond strength (SBS) testing. The tested materials [Aqua Meron (AM), Aqua Cem (AC), Ketac Cem (KC), and Otomimix CPB (OH)] were prepared and applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The SBS was tested using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results: The mean SBSs were found to be 13.28 MPa, 23.43 MPa, 8.51MPa, and 1.78 MPa for AM, AC, KC, and OH, respectively. AC had the highest SBS, which was statistically significantly different from that of KC and OH (p<0.05). Both AM and KC had higher SBS than OH (p<0.05). Conclusion: The results obtained in this study by investigating the bone-bonding strength of cements widely used in ossiculoplasty demonstrate that some of these substances have a greater ability to bond to ossicles compared to others. Further clinical investigations are needed to test different parameters.

Keywords

Bone cement, bond strength, ossicles, ossiculoplasty

References

• 1. Goebel JA, Jacob A. Use of Mimix hydroxyapatite bone cement for difficult ossicular reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:727-34. [CrossRef]
• 2. Kartush JM. Ossicular chain reconstruction. Capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994;27:689-715.
• 3. Bora F, Yücel Z, Ceylan S, Oltulu E, Batmaz T, Avseren E. Incudostapedial bridging ossiculoplasty with bone cement hearing results. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2010;20:169-72.
• 4. Kalcioglu MT, Tan M, Fleerakkers J. The use of bone cement for ossicular chain defects. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2849-55. [CrossRef]
• 5. Vital V,Konstantinidis I, Vital I, Triaridis S, Constantinidis J. Cartilage-wire-fascia compact total ossicular replacement prosthesis in one-stage cholesteatoma surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 2008;29:393-7. [CrossRef]
• 6. Quesnel S, Teissier N, Viala P, Couloigner V, Van Den Abbeele T. Long term results of ossiculoplasties with partial and total titanium Vario Kurz prostheses in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1226-9. [CrossRef]
• 7. O’Reilly RC, Cass SP, Hirsch BE, Kamerer DB, Bernat RA, Poznanovic SP. Ossiculoplasty using incus interposition: hearing results and analysis of the middle ear risk index. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:853-8. [CrossRef]
• 8. Geyer G, Helms J. Ionomer-based bone substitute in otologic surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1993;250:253-6. [CrossRef]
• 9. Righini-Grunder F, Hausler R, Chongvisal S, Caversaccio M. Glass ionomer cement in otological microsurgery: experience over 16 years. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014. DOI: 10.1007/ s00405-014-3276-z. [CrossRef]
• 10. Dere H, Ozdogan F, Ozcan KM, Selcuk A, Ozcan I, Gokturk G. Comparison of glass ionomer cement and incus interposition in reconstruction of incus long process defects. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:1565-8. [CrossRef]
• 11. Somers T, Van Rompaey V, Claes G, Salembier L, van Dinther J, Andrzei Z, et al. Ossicular reconstruction: hydroxyapatite bone cement versus incus remodelling: how to manage incudostapedial discontinuity. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:1095- 101. [CrossRef]
• 12. Ozer E, Bayazit YA, Kanlikama M, Mumbuc S, Ozen Z. Incudostapedial rebridging ossiculoplasty with bone cement. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:643-6. [CrossRef]
• 13. Hoffmann KK, Kuhn JJ, Strasnick B. Bone cements as adjuvant techniques for ossicular chain reconstruction. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:24-8. [CrossRef]
• 14. Demir UL, Karaca S, Basut O. Bone cement or incus interposition in type 2 tympanoplasty: prognostic factors and functional outcomes. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2012;22:99-104. [CrossRef]
• 15. Suresh KP. An overview pf randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci 2011;4:8-11. [CrossRef]
• 16. Huttenbrink KB, Luers JC, Beutner D. Titanium angular clip: a new prosthesis for reconstruction of the long process of the incus. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:1186-90. [CrossRef]
• 17. Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. An in vitro study on the maturation of conventional glass ionomer cements and their interface to dentin. Acta Biomater 2013;9:9529-37. [CrossRef]
• 18. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011;56 (Suppl) 1:23-30.
• 19. Bayazit YA, Ozer E, Kanlikama M, Durmaz T, Yılmaz M. Bone cement ossiculoplasty: incus to stapes versus malleus to stapes cement bridge. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:364-7. [CrossRef]
• 20. Baglam T, Karatas E, Durucu C, Kilic A, Ozer E, Mumbuc S, et al. Incudostapedial rebridging ossiculoplasty with bone cement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:243-6. [CrossRef