Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Dent Mater. 2014 Mar;30(3):343-9. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.010. Epub 2014 Jan 10.

The physical characteristics of resin composite-calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration.

Author information

1
Unit of Conservative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, King's Health Partners, London, UK; Unit of Biomaterials, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, King's Health Partners, London, UK. Electronic address: danya.hashem@kcl.ac.uk.
2
Unit of Conservative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, King's Health Partners, London, UK.
3
Biostatistics & Research Methods Centre, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, King's Health Partners, London, UK.
4
Unit of Conservative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, King's Health Partners, London, UK; Unit of Biomaterials, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, King's Health Partners, London, UK.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To compare in-vitro micro-shear bond strengths (μSBS) of resin composite to calcium silicate cement (Biodentine™) vs. glass ionomer cement vs. resin modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) using an adhesive in self-etch (SE)/total etch (TE) mode after aging three substrates and bond and characterizing their failure modes.

METHODS:

Resin composite was SE/TE bonded to 920 standardized disks of Biodentine™, GIC & RM-GIC. Dividing samples into two groups, the first underwent early (t=0min, 5min, 20min, 24h) or delayed (t=2wk, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months) substrate aging before bonding and μSBS (t=24h) testing. In the second, adhesive was applied after either early (t=5min) or delayed (t=2wk) substrate aging and then tested after bond aging (t=2wk, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months). The failure modes were identified using stereomicroscope. SEM images of selected samples were analyzed.

RESULTS:

No significant differences were observed between (SE)/(TE) bonding modes (P=0.42). With substrate aging, a significant reduction in μSBS occurred between early and delayed time intervals for Biodentine™ (P=0.001), but none for the GIC/RM-GIC (P=0.465, P=0.512 respectively). With bond aging, there was no significant difference between time intervals for all groups, except at 6 months for the GIC (P<0.05). Modes of failure were primarily cohesive within all the substrates (68.82%) followed by adhesive failure at the resin-substrate interface (21.71%).

SIGNIFICANCE:

Biodentine™ is a weak restorative material in its early setting phase. Placing the overlying resin composite as part of the laminate/layered definitive restoration is best delayed for >2wk to allow sufficient intrinsic maturation to withstand contraction forces from the resin composite. A total-etch or self-etch adhesive may be used.

KEYWORDS:

Adhesive; Biodentin; Calcium silicate cement; Dentin bonding agent; Failure mode; Glass ionomer cement; Micro-shear bond strength; Resin-modified glass ionomer cement; SEM

PMID:
24418628
DOI:
10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.010
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center