Evaluation of Bond Strength of Sonic Activated Bulk-Fill Composite Resin to Glass Ionomer Based Materials

Year 2019, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 117 - 121, 29.08.2019

Nuray Tüloğlu , Sena Kızılaslan Şule Bayrak

https://doi.org/10.34084/bshr.598244

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strengths of sonic activated nano hybrid bulk-fill composite resin to glass ionomer-based materials.

Materials and Methods: 26 cylindrical acrylic blocks with a hole in the middle measuring 4 mm diameter and 2 mm height were prepared and divided into two groups (n=13) according to the materials used; conventional glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement. The hole was filled with conventional glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement according to manufacturer’s instructions. After adhesive procedures, SonicFill was applied upon glass ionomer cements with the help of cylindrical plastic mold (2.3 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height) then light cured. All specimens were stored for 24 h in a moist environment and then shear bond strength was measured by universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using Independent- Samples T-test.

Results Means and standard deviations of shear bond strength values were recorded for conventional glass ionomer cement as 10.52 ± 1.63 and 14.85 ± 1.79 MPa for resin modified glass ionomer cement. Statistically significant differences in shear bond strength were observed among groups (p<0.05).

Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, a resin modified glass ionomer cementwhich exhibited significantly higher shear bond strength than conventional glass ionomer cement-could be preferred choice when placing glass ionomer materials under sonic activated nano hybrid bulk-fill composite resin. However, further clinical research is needed to confirm the findings of this in vitro study.

Keywords

Bulk-Fill Composite Resin, Glass Ionomer Cement, Shear Bond Strength

Sonik Enerji ile Aktive Edilen Bulk-Fill Kompozit Rezinin Cam İyonomer Esaslı Materyallere Bağlanma Dayanımının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, sonik
enerji ile aktive edilen nano hibrit bulk-fill kompozit rezinin (SonicFill) cam
iyonomer esaslı materyallere makaslama bağlanma dayanımını değerlendirmektir.

Yöntem: Araştırmamızda 4 mm çapında ve
2 mm derinlikte silindirik boşlukları bulunan 26 adet akrilik blok hazırlandı
ve kullanılan cam iyonomer esaslı materyale göre rastgele iki gruba (n=13)
ayrıldı; geleneksel cam iyonomer siman ve rezin modifiye cam iyonomer siman.
Üretici firmaların talimatlarına göre hazırlanan cam iyonomer simanlar akrilik
bloklardaki boşluklara yerleştirildi. Adeziv işlemlerin ardından, cam iyonomer
simanların üzerine 2.3 mm çapında ve 3 mm yüksekliğinde silindirik plastik
kalıplar yardımıyla SonicFill uygulandı ve ardından ışıkla polimerize edildi. Tüm
örnekler 24 saat nemli ortamda bekletildikten sonra makaslama bağlanma dayanım
değerleri universal test cihazı kullanılarak ölçüldü. Elde edilen verilerin
istatistiksel analizinde bağımsız iki örnek T testi kullanıldı.

Bulgular: Ortalama makaslama bağlanma
dayanımı ve standart sapma değerleri geleneksel cam iyonomer grubunda 10.52 ± 1.63,
rezin modifiye cam iyonomer siman grubunda ise 14.85 ± 1.79 olarak tespit
edildi. Gruplar arasında makaslama bağlanma dayanımı açısından istatistiksel
olarak anlamlı bir fark olduğu saptandı (p<0.05).

Sonuç: İn vitro olarak yapılan bu
araştırmanın sınırlamaları dahilinde, sonik enerji ile aktive edilen nano hibrit
bulk-fill kompozit rezinlerin altında cam iyonomer siman kullanılacağı zaman
geleneksel cam iyonomer simandan daha yüksek makaslama bağlanma dayanımına
sahip olan rezin modifiye cam iyonomer simanların kullanılması tercih
edilebilir. Bununla birlikte, bu in vitro
araştırmanın bulgularını destekleyecek gelecek klinik çalışmalara ihtiyaç
vardır.

Keywords

Bulk-Fill Kompozit Rezin, Cam İyonomer Siman, Makaslama Bağlanma Dayanımı

References

• 1. Gaintantzopoulou MD, Gopinath VK, Zinelis S. Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21(4): 1063-1070.
• 2. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, et al. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017;222(5): 337-344.
• 3. Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent. 2013; 38(6): 618-625.
• 4. Ilie N, Schoner C, Bucher K, et al. An in-vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites to permanent and deciduous teeth. J Dent. 2014; 42(7): 850-855.
• 5. Park J, Chang J, Ferracane J, et al. How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: incremental or bulk filling? Dent Mater. 2008; 24(11): 1501-1505.
• 6. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, et al. Physico- mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014; 42(8): 993-1000.
• 7. Orłowski M, Tarczydło B, Chałas R. Evaluation of marginal integrity of four bulk- fill dental composite materials: in vitro study. Scientific World Journal. 2015; 2015: 701262.
• 8. Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Shinya A, et al. Influence of increment thickness on light transmission, degree of conversion and micro hardness of bulk fill composites. Odontology. 2016; 104(3): 291-297.
• 9. SonicFill Composite. Instruction for use. Kerr Sybron Dental Specialities; USA; 2015.
• 10. Taher NM, Ateyah NZ. Shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement bonded to different tooth-colored restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007; 8(2): 25-34.
• 11. Altunsoy M, Ok E, Küçükyılmaz E, ve ark. Farklı cam iyonomer simanların kompozit ve kompomere olan makaslama bağlanma dayanım kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırılması. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2015; 2: 71-75.
• 12. Kerby RE, Knobloch L. The relative shear bond strength of visible light-curing and chemically curing glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23(9): 641-644.
• 13. Fortin D, Vargas MA, Swift EJ Jr. Bonding of resin composites to resin-modified glass ionomers. Am J Dent. 1995; 8(4): 201-204.
• 14. Knight GM, McIntyre JM, Mulyani. Bond strengths between composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement using the co-cure technique. Aust Dent J. 2006; 51(2): 175-179.
• 15. Chandak MG, Pattanaik N, Das A. Comparative study to evaluate shear bond strength of RMGIC to composite resin using different adhesive systems. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012; 3(3): 252-255.
• 16. Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, et al. Effect of acid and laser etching on shear bond strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements to composite resin. Lasers Med Sci. 2012; 27(2): 305-311.
• 17. Kasraie S, Shokripour M, Safari M. Evaluation of micro-shear bond strength of resin modified glass-ionomer to composite resins using various bonding systems. J Conserv Dent. 2013; 16(6): 550-554.
• 18. Ozer S, Sen Tunc E, Gonulol N. Bond strengths of silorane- and methacrylate-based composites to various underlying materials. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:782090. doi: 10.1155/2014/782090.
• 19. Francois P, Vennat E, Le Goff S, et al. 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(6): 2599-2608.