PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
This study was done to evaluate the shear bond strength between light-cured glass ionomer cement (GIC) base and resin cement for luting indirect resin inlay and to observe bonding aspects which is produced at the interface between them by SEM.
Two types of light cured GIC (Fuji II LC Improved, GC Co. Tokyo, Japan and Vitrebond™, 3M, Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A) were used in this study. For shear bond test, GIC specimens were made and immersed in 37℃ distilled water for 1 hour, 24 hours, 1 week and 2 weeks. Eighty resin inlays were prepared with Artglass® (Heraeus Kultzer, Germany) and luted with Variolink® II (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein).
Shear bond strength of each specimen was measured and fractured surface were examined. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA.
Twenty four extracted human third molars were selected and Class II cavities were prepared and GIC based at axiopulpal lineangle. The specimens were immersed in 37℃ distilled water for 1 hour, 24 hours, 1 week and 2 weeks. And then the resin inlays were luted to prepared teeth. The specimens were sectioned vertically with low speed saw. The bonding aspect of the specimens were observed by SEM (JSM-5400®, Jeol, Tokyo, Japan). There was no significant difference between the shear bond strength according to storage periods of light cured GIC base. And cohesive failure was mostly appeared in GIC. On scanning electron micrograph, about 30 - 120 µm of the gaps were observed on the interface between GIC base and dentin. No gaps were observed on the interface between GIC and resin inlay.
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Comparison of the shear bond strength between light cured glass-ionomer & resin inlay according to storage periods.
Figure 2
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Fuji II LC Improved after 1 hour.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 3
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Fuji II LC Improved after 24 hours.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 4
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Fuji II LC Improved after 1 week.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 5
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Fuji II LC Improved after 2 weeks.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 6
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Vitrebond™ after 1 hour.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 7
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Vitrebond™ after 24 hours.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 8
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Vitrebond™ after 1 week.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Figure 9
SEM image of indirect composite restoration based with Vitrebond™ after 2 weeks.
A) Original magnification (35 ×)
B) Image of the glass-ionomer base/dentin interface (500 ×)
C) Image of the composite inlay/glass-ionomer base interface (500 ×)
Abbreviation
RI: resin inlay
G: glass-ionomer cement
D: dentin
References
1. Schwartz RS, Summitt JB, William Robbins J. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. 1996. Chicago IL: Quintessence Publishing Co;207–210.
2. Schwartz RS, Summitt JB, William Robbins J. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. 1996. Chicago IL: Quintessence Publishing Co;210–215.
3. Ferracane JL, Marker VA. Solvent Degradation and Reduced Fracture Toughness in Aged Composites. J Dent Res. 1992. 71:13–19.
4. Robinson PB, Moore BK, Swartz ML. Comparison of Microleakage in Direct and Indirect Composite Resin Restoration in vitro. Oper Dent. 1987. 12:113–116.
5. Wendt SL Jr, Leinfelder KF. Clinical evaluation of a heat-treated resin composite inlay:3-year results. Am J Dent. 1992. 5:258–262.
6. Schwartz RS, Summitt JB, William Robbins J. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. 1996. Chicago IL: Quintessence Publishing Co;234–235.
7. Elledge DA. Multifunctional bases and liners. Dent Clin North Am. 1998. 42:739–754.
8. Hilton TJ. Cavity Sealers, Liners, and Bases: Current Philosphies and Indications for Use. Oper Dent. 1996. 21:134–146.
9. Mclean JW, Prosser HJ. The Use of Glass-ionomer Cements in Bonding Composite Resin to Dentine. Br Dent J. 1985. 158:410.
10. Yap AU, Mok BYY, Pearson G. An in vitro microleakage study of the 'bonded-base' restorative technique. J Oral Rehabil. 1997. 24:230–236.
11. Smith DC. Composition and charateristics of glass ionomer cements. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990. 120:20–22.
12. Farah CS, Orton VG, Collard SM. Shear bond strength of chemical and light-cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites. Aust Dent J. 1998. 43:81–86.
13. Hotta M, Aono M. Adaptation to the cavity floor of the light-cured glass ionomer cement base under composite restoration. J Oral Rehabil. 1994. 21:679–685.
14. Mitra SB. Adhesion to Dentin and Physical Property of Light-cured Glass-ionomer Liner/Base. J Dent Res. 1991. 70:72–74.
15. Irie M, Suzuki K. Water Storage Effect on the Marginal Seal of Resin-modified Glass-Ionomer Resrotrations. Oper Dent. 1999. 24:272–278.
16. Welbury RR, McCabe JF, Murray JJ, Rusby S. Factors affecting the bond strength of composite resin to etched glass-ionomer cement. J Dent. 1988. 16:188–193.
17. Tjan AH, Glancy JF. Interfacial bond strengths between layers of visible light-activated composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 59:25–29.
18. van Dijken JW. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restoration. Acta Odontol Scand. 1994. 52:368–376.
19. Jackson RD, Ferguson RW. An esthetic, bonded inlay/onlay technique for posterior teeth. Quintessence Int. 1990. 21:7–12.
20. Wendt SL. The effect of heat used as secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. I. Diametral tensile strength, compressive strength, and marginal dimensional stability. Quintessence Int. 1987. 18:265–271.
21. Ruyter IE. Type of resin-based inlay materials and their properties. Int Dent J. 1992. 42:139–144.
22. Schwartz RS, Summitt JB, William Robbins J. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. 1996. Chicago IL: Quintessence Publishing Co;229.
23. Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V, Payan J. Effect of water on the physical properties of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 1999. 15:71–78.
24. McCabe JF. Resin-modified glass-ionomers. Biomaterials. 1998. 19:521–527.
25. Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK, Philips RW. Effect of the bonding agent on the bond strength between glass ionomer cement and composite resin. Quintessence Int. 1989. 20:31–35.
26. Garcia-Godoy F, Draheim RN, Titus HW. Shear bond strength of a posterior composite resin to glass ionomer bases. Quintessence Int. 1988. 19:357–359.
27. Parra M, Kopel HM. Shear bond strength of repaired glass ionomers. Am J Dent. 1992. 5:133–136.
28. Smith GE. Surface Deterioaration of Glass-Ionomer Cement during Acid Etching: an SEM Evaluation. Oper Dent. 1988. 13:3–7.
29. Aschheim KW, Dale BG. Composite resin: indirect technique restorations. Esthetic Dentistry. 2001. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Co;97–111.
30. Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. J Dent Res. 1982. 61:791–795.
31. Shortall AC, Baylis RL, Wilson HJ. Composite inlay/luting resin bond strength-surface treatment effects. J Dent. 1996. 24:129–135.
32. Jang BS, Kim SK. Bonding of Resin Inlay to Glass-ionomer Base with Various Treatments on Inlay Surface. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2000. 25:399–406.
33. Meyers R, Garcia-Godoy F, Norling BK. Failure mode of a posterior composite resin bonded to a glass-ionomer cement treated with various etching times and with or without a coupling agent. Quintessence Int. 1990. 21:501–506.
34. Hotta M, Kondoh K, Yamamoto K, Kimura K. Comparison of air-dried treatments after etching on the micromechanical bonding of the composite to ionomer surface. Oper Dent. 1991. 16:169–174.
35. Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Cimmino A, Tyas MJ. The evaluation of four conditioners for glass ionomer cements using field-emission scanning electron microscopy. J Dent. 2001. 29:131–138.
36. Karaagaclioglu L, Zaimoglu A, Akoren AC. Microleakage of indirect inlays placed on different kinds of glass ionomer cement linings. J Oral Rehabil. 1992. 19:457–469.
37. Cooley RL, Barkmeier WW. Dentinal shear bond strength, microleakage and contraction gap of visible light-polymerized liners/bases. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22:467–474.
38. Munksgaard EC, Irie M, Asmussen E. Dentin-polymer bond promoted by Gluma and various resins. J Dent Res. 1985. 64:1409–1411.
39. Small IC, Watson TF, Chadwick AV, Sidhu SK. Water sorption in resin-modified glass-ionomer cements : An in vitro comparison with other materials. Biomaterials. 1998. 19:545–550.
40. Yip HK, Tay FR, Ngo HC, Smales RJ, Pashley DH. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to dentin. Dent Mater. 2001. 17:456–470.
41. Tay FR, Smales RJ, Ngo H, Wei SHY, Pashley DH. Effect of Different Conditioning Protocols on Adhesion of a GIC to Dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2001. 3:153–167.
XML Download