Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials?

Ceren Değer; Leyla Fazlıoglu; Zümrüt Ceren Özduman; Burcu Oglakci Ozkoc; Evrim Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç

doi:10.65022/clindentres.1925954

Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials?

Abstract

Background and Aim: Calcium hydroxide liners are commonly used in deep cavities and their mechanical properties may affect the adhesion of restorative materials. This study evaluated the effect of cavity conditioner application on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer–based materials to a calcium hydroxide liner. Materials and Methods: Sixty acrylic blocks containing standardized cylindrical cavities were prepared and filled with a calcium hydroxide liner (Dycal, Dentsply Caulk). The specimens were first divided according to cavity conditioner application (with or without 20% polyacrylic acid) and then subdivided based on the restorative material applied over the liner: a conventional glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP Capsule, GC Dental), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC Capsule, GC Dental), or a bioactive ionic resin liner (Activa BioActive Liner, Pulpdent) (n=10). Shear bond strength testing and failure mode analysis were performed. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc tests (α=0.05). Results: Glass ionomer–based material type significantly affected shear bond strength (p<0.05), whereas cavity conditioner application showed no significant effect (p>0.05). Fuji II LC showed the highest bond strength values (6.48±2.67 and 6.81±3.50 MPa), whereas Fuji IX GP showed the lowest (3.54±1.98 and 4.13±1.46 MPa). Activa BioActive Liner showed comparable values (4.99±1.84 and 6.39±2.34 MPa). Adhesive failures predominated in Fuji IX GP groups, whereas cohesive and mixed failures were more frequent in resin-containing groups. Conclusion: Cavity conditioner application did not significantly improve bond strength to calcium hydroxide. Resin-modified glass ionomer may provide more favorable interfacial performance than conventional GIC, whereas the bioactive ionic resin liner demonstrated comparable performance to both materials.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Not applicable

References

1. Morotomi T, Washio A, Kitamura C. Current and future options for dental pulp therapy. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2019; 55:5-11.
2. Karadas M, Atıcı MG. Bond strength and adaptation of pulp capping materials to dentin. Microsc Res Tech 2020; 83: 514-522.
3. Komabayashi T, Zhu Q, Eberhart R, Imai Y. Current status of direct pulp-capping materials for permanent teeth. Dent Mater J 2016; 35: 1-12.
4. Mohammadi Z, Dummer PMH. Properties and applications of calcium hydroxide in endodontics and dental traumatology. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 697-730.
5. Arandi NZ, Rabi T. Cavity bases revisited. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2020: 305-12.
6. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016; 7: 16.
7. Birant S, Gümüştaş B. The effect of thermal aging on microhardness and SEM/EDS for characterisation bioactive filling materials. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24: 1142.
8. Ahmed B, Wafaie RA, Hamama HH, Mahmoud SH. 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials. Sci Rep 2024; 14: 4942.

9. Raina A, Sawhny A, Paul S, Nandamuri S. Comparative evaluation of the bond strength of self-adhering and bulk-fill flowable composites to MTA Plus, Dycal, Biodentine, and TheraCal: an in vitro study. Restor Dent Endod 2020; 45.
10. de Melo Avila W, Hesse D, Bonifacio CC. Surface conditioning prior to the application of glass-ionomer cement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2019; 21: 391-399.
11. Lopes LELS, Tedesco TK, Calvo AFB, Imparato JCP, Raggio DP, Mendes FM et al. Is prior conditioning of dentin necessary in restoration with glass-ionomer cement? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Adhes Adhes 2021; 104: 102748.
12. Gürler S, Demirel A, Buyuksungur A. The evaluation of internal adaptation of glass ionomer restorations applied after the use of different cavity conditioners in primary teeth: an in-vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2025; 25: 36.
13. Francois P, Vennat E, Le Goff S, Ruscassier N, Attal J-P, Dursun E. Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23: 2599- 2608.
14. Karaman GE, Bulut M, Yazan Sukur E. Comparative analysis of shear bond strength of MTA and Theracal PT with different restorative materials. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24: 974.
15. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 1995; 11: 117-125.
16. Cardoso PE, Braga RR, Carrilho MR. Evaluation of micro-tensile, shear and tensile tests determining the bond strength of three adhesive systems. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 394-398.
17. Armstrong S, Breschi L, Özcan M, Pfefferkorn F, Ferrari M, Van Meerbeek B. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/ enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent Mater 2017; 33: 133-143.
18. Değer C, Evcin MD, Özduman ZC. Impact of Adhesive Application Modes on Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composites to Biodentine. Eur Ann Dent Sci 2025; 52: 45-49.
19. Yapar Mİ, Bayındır YZ. Investigation of Shear Bond Strength of Composite Resin and Glass Ionomer Cement to Dentin with Different Roughening Methods. Acta Odontol Turc 2026; 43: 17- 24.
20. Cushley S, Duncan H, Lappin M, Chua P, Elamin A, Clarke M et al. Efficacy of direct pulp capping for management of cariously exposed pulps in permanent teeth: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int Endod J 2021; 54: 556-571.
21. Pinto KP, da Silva GR, Ferreira CMA, Sassone LM, da Silva EJNL. Success rate of direct pulp capping on permanent teeth using bioactive materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Restor Dent Endod 2024; 49: e34.
22. Manoj A, Kavitha R, Karuveettil V, Singh VP, Haridas K, Venugopal K. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based liners to resin-modified glass ionomer cement in resin composite restorations-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Dent 2022: 1-10.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Restorative Dentistry, Dental Materials

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ceren Değer ^*
0000-0002-2100-8963
Türkiye

Leyla Fazlıoglu
0000-0002-9475-916X
Türkiye

Zümrüt Ceren Özduman
0000-0003-2648-1730
Türkiye

Burcu Oglakci Ozkoc
0000-0002-6587-5997
Türkiye

Evrim Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç
0000-0002-1075-9278
Türkiye

Publication Date

August 24, 2026

Submission Date

April 9, 2026

Acceptance Date

June 12, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 50 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.65022/clindentres.1925954

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA97MK54CC

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Değer, C., Fazlıoglu, L., Özduman, Z. C., Oglakci Ozkoc, B., & Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç, E. (2026). Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials? Clinical Dentistry and Research, 50(2), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.65022/clindentres.1925954

AMA

1.Değer C, Fazlıoglu L, Özduman ZC, Oglakci Ozkoc B, Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç E. Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials? Clin Dent Res. 2026;50(2):171-178. doi:10.65022/clindentres.1925954

Chicago

Değer, Ceren, Leyla Fazlıoglu, Zümrüt Ceren Özduman, Burcu Oglakci Ozkoc, and Evrim Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç. 2026. “Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials?”. Clinical Dentistry and Research 50 (2): 171-78. https://doi.org/10.65022/clindentres.1925954.

EndNote

Değer C, Fazlıoglu L, Özduman ZC, Oglakci Ozkoc B, Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç E (August 1, 2026) Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials? Clinical Dentistry and Research 50 2 171–178.

IEEE

[1]C. Değer, L. Fazlıoglu, Z. C. Özduman, B. Oglakci Ozkoc, and E. Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç, “Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials?”, Clin Dent Res, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 171–178, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.65022/clindentres.1925954.

ISNAD

Değer, Ceren - Fazlıoglu, Leyla - Özduman, Zümrüt Ceren - Oglakci Ozkoc, Burcu - Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç, Evrim. “Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials?”. Clinical Dentistry and Research 50/2 (August 1, 2026): 171-178. https://doi.org/10.65022/clindentres.1925954.

JAMA

1.Değer C, Fazlıoglu L, Özduman ZC, Oglakci Ozkoc B, Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç E. Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials? Clin Dent Res. 2026;50:171–178.

MLA

Değer, Ceren, et al. “Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials?”. Clinical Dentistry and Research, vol. 50, no. 2, Aug. 2026, pp. 171-8, doi:10.65022/clindentres.1925954.

Vancouver

1.Ceren Değer, Leyla Fazlıoglu, Zümrüt Ceren Özduman, Burcu Oglakci Ozkoc, Evrim Eligüzeloğlu Dalkılıç. Shear Bond Strength to Calcium Hydroxide: Does Cavity Conditioning Make a Difference for Glass Ionomer Based Materials? Clin Dent Res. 2026 Aug. 1;50(2):171-8. doi:10.65022/clindentres.1925954