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

Aakrati Raina; Asheesh Sawhny; Saurav Paul; Sridevi Nandamuri

doi:10.5395/rde.2018.45.e10

Journal List > Restor Dent Endod > v.45(1) > 1142549

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Raina, Sawhny, Paul, and Nandamuri: 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

Research Article

Restor Dent Endod 2020;45(1):e10.

Published online: 4 February 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.45.e10

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

Aakrati Raina^*, Asheesh Sawhny, Saurav Paul, Sridevi Nandamuri

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

^*Correspondence to Aakrati Raina, MDS, BDS Postgraduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre, A-1/8, Lakhanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208024, India. E-mail: aakratiraina@gmail.com

Received 1 May 2019 Revised 1 November 2019 Accepted 5 November 2019

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of a self-adhering flowable composite (Dyad Flow) and a bulk-fill flowable composite (Smart Dentin Replacement [SDR]) to several pulp-capping materials, including MTA Plus, Dycal, Biodentine, and TheraCal.

Materials and Methods

Eighty acrylic blocks with 2-mm-deep central holes that were 4 mm in diameter were prepared and divided into 2 groups (n = 40 each) according to the composite used (Dyad Flow or SDR). They were further divided into 4 sub-groups (n = 10 each) according to the pulp-capping agent used. SBS was tested using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance. A p value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

A statistically significant difference (p = 0.040) was found between Dyad Flow and SDR in terms of bond strength to MTA Plus, Dycal, Biodentine, and TheraCal.

Conclusions

Among the 8 sub-groups, the combination of TheraCal and SDR exhibited the highest SBS.

Keywords: Biodentine, Bulk-fill composite, Dyad Flow, Mineral trioxide aggregate, SDR, Theracal

References

1. Ghoddusi J, Forghani M, Parisay I. New approaches in vital pulp therapy in permanent teeth. Iran Endod J. 2014; 9:15–22.

2. Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Botero T, Bossù M, Riccitiello F, Prati C. Calcium silicate and calcium hydroxide materials for pulp capping: biointeractivity, porosity, solubility and bioactivity of current formulations. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2015; 13:43–60.

3. Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Primus CM, Prati C. Ion release, porosity, solubility, and bioactivity of MTA Plus tricalcium silicate. J Endod. 2014; 40:1632–1637.

4. Altunsoy M, Tanrıver M, Ok E, Kucukyilmaz E. Shear bond strength of a self-adhering flowable composite and a flowable base composite to mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium-enriched mixture cement, and Biodentine. J Endod. 2015; 41:1691–1695.

5. Arandi NZ, Rabi T. TheraCal LC: from biochemical and bioactive properties to clinical applications. Int J Dent. 2018; 2018:3484653.

6. Cantekin K, Avci S. Evaluation of shear bond strength of two resin-based composites and glass ionomer cement to pure tricalcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine^®). J Appl Oral Sci. 2014; 22:302–306.

7. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:227–235.

8. Serin BA, Dogan MC, Yoldas HO. Comparison of the shear bond strength of silorane-based composite resin and methacrylate based composite resin to MTA. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect. 2018; 12:1–5.

9. Tuloglu N, Sen Tunc E, Ozer S, Bayrak S. Shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite on dentin with and without application of an adhesive system. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014; 12:97–101.

10. Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:1991–2000.

11. Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:1497–1506.

12. Sultana N, Nawal RR, Chaudhry S, Sivakumar M, Talwar S. Effect of acid etching on the micro-shear bond strength of resin composite-calcium silicate interface evaluated over different time intervals of bond aging. J Conserv Dent. 2018; 21:194–197.

13. Tunç EŞ, Sönmez IS, Bayrak S, Eğ ilmez T. The evaluation of bond strength of a composite and a compomer to white mineral trioxide aggregate with two different bonding systems. J Endod. 2008; 34:603–605.

14. Peterson J, Rizk M, Hoch M, Wiegand A. Bonding performance of self-adhesive flowable composites to enamel, dentin and a nano-hybrid composite. Odontology. 2018; 106:171–180.

15. Yesilyurt C, Ceyhanli KT, KedıcıAlp C, Yildirim T, Tasdemır T. In vitro bonding effectiveness of new self-adhering flowable composite to calcium silicate-based material. Dent Mater J. 2014; 33:319–324.

16. Doozaneh M, Koohpeima F, Firouzmandi M, Abbassiyan F. Shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite and resin-modified glass ionomer to two pulp capping materials. Iran Endod J. 2017; 12:103–107.

17. Tyagi N, Chaman C, Tyagi SP, Singh UP, Sharma A. The shear bond strength of MTA with three different types of adhesive systems: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19:130–133.

18. Shin JH, Jang JH, Park SH, Kim E. Effect of mineral trioxide aggregate surface treatments on morphology and bond strength to composite resin. J Endod. 2014; 40:1210–1216.

19. Tulumbaci F, Almaz ME, Arikan V, Mutluay MS. Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine. J Conserv Dent. 2017; 20:292–296.

20. Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Shear bond strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med. 2015; 11:14.

21. Jeong H, Lee N, Lee S. Comparison of shear bond strength of different restorative materials to tricalcium silicate-based pulp capping materials. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2017; 44:200–209.

22. Cantekin K. Bond strength of different restorative materials to light-curable mineral trioxide aggregate. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015; 39:143–148.

23. Deepa VL, Dhamaraju B, Bollu IP, Balaji TS. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to three different liners: TheraCal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement using universal adhesive: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19:166–170.

24. Alzraikat H, Taha NA, Qasrawi D, Burrow MF. Shear bond strength of a novel light cured calcium silicate based-cement to resin composite using different adhesive systems. Dent Mater J. 2016; 35:881–887.

25. 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; 38:403–411.

Figure 1.

Scanning electron micrographs of bond failure modes. (A) Representative image of adhesive failure; the specimen was from the Dycal + Dyad Flow group. (B) Representative image of cohesive failure; the specimen was from the TheraCal + Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR) group. (C) Representative image of mixed failure; the specimen was from the Biodentine + SDR group.

Table 1.

Comparison of shear bond strength (MPa) between Dyad Flow and Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR) with different pulp-capping agents

Variables	Number	Dyad Flow	SDR	p value^*
MTA Plus	10	1.81 ± 1.90	4.05 ± 2.92	0.040^†
Dycal	10	1.07 ± 0.54	2.68 ± 1.66
Biodentine	10	2.05 ± 1.11	4.63 ± 1.90
TheraCal	10	4.70 ± 2.33	9.79 ± 2.52
Total	40	2.41 ± 2.09	5.29 ± 3.51

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

^* The p value derived from 2-way analysis of variance;

^† Significant at p < 0.05.

Table 2.

Distribution of bond failure mode between Dyad Flow and Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR) with different pulp-capping agents (n = 10)

Composites	Pulp-capping agents	AF	CF	MF
Dyad Flow	MTA Plus	1	9	0
	Dycal	6	4	0
	Biodentine	4	2	4
	TheraCal	3	7	0
SDR	MTA Plus	0	10	0
	Dycal	1	7	2
	Biodentine	0	7	3
	TheraCal	1	6	3

AF, adhesive failure; CF, cohesive failure; MF, mixed failure.

TOOLS

Similar articles