Journal List > Restor Dent Endod > v.45(1) > 1148374

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

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.

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

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.
rde-45-e10f1.tif
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