Restoratif Materyallerin Süt Dişi Dentinine Bağlanma Dayanımının Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 208 - 213, 22.08.2025

Esra Özkan Kaya , Seçkin Aksu , Seçil Çalışkan

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1570288

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, süt dişi dentinine uygulanan dört farklı restoratif materyalin makaslama bağlanma dayanımlarının değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Akrilik bloklara gömülen süt azı dişlerinin okluzal yüzeyleri mine-sement sınırına paralel olacak şekilde aşındırıldı. Bloklar her bir restoratif materyal için 16 azı süt dişi olacak şekilde dört gruba ayrıldı. Üretici firmanın önerileri doğrultusunda hazırlanan FFUJI IX LC, FUJI II LC, DYRACT XP ve ACTIVA Kids biyoaktif materyalleri çapı 3 mm ve yüksekliği 4 mm olan silindirik kalıplar kullanılarak dişlerin aşındırılan dentini üzerine yerleştirildi. Örneklerin 37°C fırında ve distile suda 24 saat bekletilmesinin ardından makaslama bağlanma dayanımı değerleri üniversal bir test cihazı kullanılarak ölçüldü. Oluşan kırık tipleri stereomikroskop altında incelendi ve kaydedildi. Elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel değerlendirilmesinde One-way-ANOVA, Post-hoc Tukey, Ki-Kare ve Post-hoc Bonferroni testleri kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Tüm gruplar arasında en yüksek ortalama makaslama bağlanma dayanımı değeri rezin modifiye cam iyonomer siman olan FUJI II LC grubunda, en düşük ortalama makaslama bağlanma dayanımı değeri ise kompomer olan DYRAACT XP grubunda bulundu (p<0,01). Tüm gruplarda en sık görülen kırık tipi adeziv tip kırık (%67,2) iken, en az görülen kırık tipi koheziv tip kırık (%1,6) idi (p=0,026).
Sonuç: Rezin içerikli restoratif materyallerin süt dişi dentinine bağlanma mukavemeti daha yüksektir. Yeni piyasaya sürülen ve üzerinde sınırlı sayıda çalışma bulunan ACTIVA Kids biyoaktif restoratif materyalinin süt dişi dentini üzerinde kullanıma uygun olduğu görülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: biyoaktif restoratif materyal, cam iyonomer, kompomer, süt dişleri, bağlanma dayanımı

Keywords

biyoaktif restoratif materyal , cam iyonomer , kompomer , süt dişleri , bağlanma dayanımı

Ethical Statement

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurul Başkanlığı tarafından onayı (Karar Sayısı:68, 22.03.22)

Supporting Institution

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu

Project Number

TDH-2021-1698

Thanks

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu tarafından TDH-2021-1698 proje numarasıyla desteklenmiş olan bu çalışma, 01-03 Ekim 2022 tarihlerinde düzenlenen Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi 2. Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği Kongresi’nde sözlü bildiri olarak sunulmuştur.

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Restorative Materials to Primary Tooth Dentin

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the shear bond strengths of four different restorative materials applied to primary teeth.
Materials and Methods: The occlusal surfaces of primary molars, which were embedded in acrylic blocks, were abraded parallel to the enamel-cementum boundary. The blocks were divided into four groups with 16 primary teeth for each restorative material. FFUJI IX LC, FUJI II LC, DYRACT XP, and ACTIVA Kids Bioactive prepared by the manufacturer's recommendations using cylindrical molds with a diameter of 3 mm and a height of 4 mm were placed on the dentin. Samples were kept in distilled water in an oven at 37°C for 24 hours, the shear bond strength values were measured using a universal tester. Fractures of broken specimen types were examined and recorded under the stereomicroscope. In the statistical evaluation of the obtained data, One-way-ANOVA, Post-hoc Tukey tests and Chi-Square, and Post-hoc Bonferroni tests were used.
Results: The highest average shear bond strength value among all groups was in the resin-modified glass ionomer cement FUJI II LC group, and the lowest average shear bond strength value was in the compomer DYRAACT XP group (p<0.01). The most common type of fracture in all groups was adhesive type fracture (67.2%), and the least common type of fracture was the cohesive type (1.6%) (p=0.026).
Conclusion: Resin-containing materials have higher bond strength to primary tooth dentin, and the newly released ACTIVA Kids bioactive restorative material, which has limited studies, is suitable for use in primary teeth in the clinic.
Keywords: Bioactive restorative material, compomer, primary teeth, shear strength

Keywords

Bioactive restorative material , compomer , primary teeth , shear strength

Project Number

TDH-2021-1698

References

• 1. Andaş K, Knorst JK, Bonifácio CC, Kleverlaan CJ, Hesse D. Compomers for the restorative treatment of dental caries in primary teeth: An umbrella review. J Dent. 2023 Nov;138:104696. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104696. Epub 2023 Sep 14. PMID: 37714452.
• 2. Hardan L, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Devoto W, Zarow M, Monteiro P, Jakubowicz N, Zoghbi AE, Skaba D, Mancino D, Kharouf N, Haïkel Y, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Effect of Different Application Modalities on the Bonding Performance of Adhesive Systems to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells. 2023 Jan 3;12(1):190. doi: 10.3390/cells12010190. PMID: 36611983; PMCID: PMC9818277.
• 3. Karadas M, Cantekin K, Gumus H, Ateş SM, Duymuş ZY. Evaluation of the bond strength of different adhesive agents to a resin-modified calcium silicate material (TheraCal LC). Scanning. 2016 Sep;38(5):403-411. doi: 10.1002/sca.21284. Epub 2015 Nov 10. PMID: 26553783.
• 4. Nanavati K, Katge F, Chimata VK, Pradhan D, Kamble A, Patil D. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Material, Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement to the Dentinal Surface of Primary Molars: an in vitro Study. J Dent (Shiraz). 2021 Dec;22(4):260-266. doi: 10.30476/DENTJODS.2021.87115.1230. PMID: 34904122; PMCID: PMC8665444.
• 5. Fierascu RC. Incorporation of Nanomaterials in Glass Ionomer Cements-Recent Developments and Future Perspectives: A Narrative Review. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2022 Oct 29;12(21):3827. doi: 10.3390/nano12213827. PMID: 36364603; PMCID: PMC9658828.
• 6. Santos MJMC, Leon L, Siddique I, Butler S. Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of RMGIC/GIC Class V Restorations. Dent J (Basel). 2023 Sep 20;11(9):225. doi: 10.3390/dj11090225. PMID: 37754345; PMCID: PMC10529511.
• 7. Heintze SD, Loguercio AD, Hanzen TA, Reis A, Rousson V. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations - An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters. Dent Mater. 2022 May;38(5):e109-e135. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.018. Epub 2022 Feb 24. PMID: 35221127.
• 8. ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE Safety Data Sheet https://www.pulpdent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GHS-SDS-Activa-Restorative-1.pdf.
• 9. Hirani RT, Batra R, Kapoor SJJoISoP, Dentistry C. Comparative evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in bulk fill restoratives: a randomized controlled trial. 2018;8(6):534.
• 10. Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal J-P, Dursun EJM. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification. 2020;13(10):2313.
• 11. Ergül R, Aksu S, Çalışkan S, Tüloğlu N. Shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based cements to glass ionomers. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jan 28;24(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-03890-x. PMID: 38281948; PMCID: PMC10822172.
• 12. Tuloglu N, Akay CG, Bayrak S. Shear bond strength of zirconia ceramic to the primary tooth dentin. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020 Jun;23(6):792-797. doi: 10.4103/njcp. njcp_567_19. PMID: 32525113.
• 13. Dhull Strength of Conventional GIC and Cention N to Enamel and Dentin of Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022 Jul-Aug;15(4):412-416. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2410. PMID: 36875970; PMCID: PMC9983597.
• 14. Malekafzali B, Ghasemi A, Torabzadeh H, Hamedani R, Tadayon NJJoD. Effect of multiple adhesive coating on microshear bond strength to primary tooth dentin. 2013;10(2):169.
• 15. Gaintantzopoulou MD, Gopinath VK, Zinelis SJCoi. Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars. 2017;21(4):1063-70.
• 16. Zou J, Du Q, Ge L, Wang J, Wang X, Li Y, Song G, Zhao W, Chen X, Jiang B, Mei Y, Huang Y, Deng S, Zhang H, Li Y, Zhou X. Expert consensus on early childhood caries management. Int J Oral Sci. 2022 Jul 14;14(1):35. doi: 10.1038/s41368-022-00186-0. PMID: 35835750; PMCID: PMC9283525.
• 17. Suresh K, Nagarathna JJA. Evaluation of shear bond strengths of fuji II and fuji IX with and without salivary contamination on deciduous molars-an In vitro study. 2011;1(3):139-45.
• 18. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A, De Munck JJDm. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. 2010;26(2):e100-e21.
• 19. Olcay K, Eyüboğlu Tfjaüdhfd. Farkli hassasiyet giderici ajanlarin tek aşamali bir self-etch adeziv sistemin dentine makaslama bağlanma dayanimina etkisi. 2019;29(2):213-19.
• 20. Karaman E, Tuncer D, Karahan S, Ertan AJAOT. Farklı adeziv sistemlerin dentine makaslama bağlanma dayanımı: in vitro çalışma. 2015;32(3):112-15.
• 21. Altunsoy M, Evren O, Küçükyilmaz E, Bölükbaşi B, Bilgin MSJSDJ. Farklı cam iyonomer simanların kompozit ve kompomere olan makaslama bağlanma dayanım kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırılması. 2015;2(2):71-75.
• 22. Czarnecka B, Deręgowska-Nosowicz P, Limanowska-Shaw H, Nicholson JWJJoMSMiM. Shear bond strengths of glass-ionomer cements to sound and to prepared carious dentine. 2007;18(5):845-49.
• 23. Kensche A, Dähne F, Wagenschwanz C, Richter G, Viergutz G, Hannig CJCoi. Shear bond strength of different types of adhesive systems to dentin and enamel of deciduous teeth in vitro. 2016;20(4):831-40.
• 24. Carvalho T-S, van Amerongen W-E, de Gee A, Bönecker M, Sampaio F-CJMOPOCB. Shear bond strengths of three glass ionomer cements to enamel and dentine. 2011;16(3):e406-10.
• 25. el-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of compomers in primary and permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8(2):103-14.
• 26. Singh P, Jha M, Arora K, Bhat D, Awchat K, Goyal G, Mitra MJJoEoM, Sciences D. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Packable Glass Ionomer Cement, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement, Compomer and Giomer to Primary and Permanent Teeth--An In Vitro Study. 2021;10(19):1429-35.
• 27. Pacifici E, Chazine M, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C, Ferrari MJJoCPD. Shear-bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable restorative material to dentin of primary molars. 2013;38(2):149-54.
• 28. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, Sibal GKJIjocpd. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: An in vitro study. 2016;9(3):192.
• 29. Swift E, Pawlus M, Vargas MJOD. Shear bond strengths of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. 1995;20138-38.
• 30. Ramos NBP, Felizardo KR, Berger SB, Guiraldo RD, Lopes MB. Comparative study of physical-chemical properties of bioactive glass ionomer cement. Braz Dent J. 2024 Mar 22;35: e245728. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440202405728. PMID: 38537023; PMCID: PMC10976313.
• 31. López-García S, Pecci-Lloret MP, Pecci-Lloret MR, Oñate-Sánchez RE, García-Bernal D, Castelo-Baz P, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Guerrero-Gironés J. In Vitro Evaluation of the Biological Effects of ACTIVA Kids BioACTIVE Restorative, Ionolux, and Riva Light Cure on Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells. Materials (Basel). 2019 Nov 8;12(22):3694. doi: 10.3390/ma12223694. PMID: 31717445; PMCID: PMC6888068.
• 32. Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Egilmez F, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJJJopr. Micro-shear bond strength of different resin cements to ceramic/glass-polymer CAD-CAM block materials. 2016;60(4):265-73.
• 33. Atsu SS, Kilicarslan MA, Kucukesmen HC, Aka PSJTJopd. Effect of zirconium-oxide ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength to adhesive resin. 2006;95(6):430-36.
• 34. Sheth VH, Shah NP, Jain R, Bhanushali N, Bhatnagar V. Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: The QUIN. J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jun;131(6):1038-1042. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.05.019. Epub 2022 Jun 23. PMID: 35752496.