Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 274
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 350-353
Bond strength of composite resin to white mineral trioxide aggregate: Effect of different surface treatments


1 Dental Materials Research Center and Department of Operative Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Operative Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 Dental Research Center, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission01-Sep-2016
Date of Decision11-Aug-2017
Date of Acceptance22-Feb-2018
Date of Web Publication27-Jul-2018
 

   Abstract 

Background: The main aim of restorative dentistry is to restore and preserve dental health with the use of appropriate restorative modalities to protect the pulp and restore its function. This study compared the effect of different surface treatments of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) on the bond strength of composite resin to MTA.
Materials and Methods: Forty cylindrical acrylic blocks with a hole were prepared and filled by ProRoot MTA. The samples were assigned to four groups: Group 1 – no surface treatment; Group 2 – phosphoric acid etching; Group 3 – sandblasting; and Group 4 – hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, rinsing, and silane application. OptiBond Solo Plus adhesive was utilized in all the groups. Then, composite resin cylinders were bonded to sample surfaces. The samples were thermocycled and tested for microshear bond strength using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests. Scanning electron microscopy images were prepared for each study group after surface treatments.
Results: Means and standard deviations of bond strength values in study groups 1–4 were 14.83 ± 7.76, 21.85 ±7.99, 6.48 ± 3.89, and 26.01 ± 11.09 Mpa, respectively.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, phosphoric acid etching or HF etching plus silanization was preferred to surface treatment of MTA before composite resin bonding.

Keywords: Composite resins; mineral trioxide aggregate; shear strength, hydrofluoric acid, acid etching, dental

How to cite this article:
Samimi P, Kazemian M, Shirban F, Alaei S, Khoroushi M. Bond strength of composite resin to white mineral trioxide aggregate: Effect of different surface treatments. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:350-3

How to cite this URL:
Samimi P, Kazemian M, Shirban F, Alaei S, Khoroushi M. Bond strength of composite resin to white mineral trioxide aggregate: Effect of different surface treatments. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 23];21:350-3. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2018/21/4/350/237730

   Introduction Top


Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has been confirmed and used as an apical barrier in cases of open apices, repair of perforations, treatment of internal/external root resorption, and direct pulp capping (DPC).[1]

Provision of a coronal seal during restorative procedures of root-filled teeth, especially in cases of perforation or DPC, is very important. In such cases, the use of a secondary intracoronal seal has been suggested with the application of adhesive materials due to inadequate sealing of the perforations or exposure areas.[2],[3]

Furthermore, in most cases with furca perforations or DPC, it is not possible to achieve retention from the intracanal post or secondary retention features. As a result, the advantages of applying an adhesive restoration over MTA consist of achieving secondary retention and secondary seal. In many cases, composite resin is recommended because it exerts lower forces on the pulp capping biomaterial during placement of the final restoration.[4] Since the goal is to obtain a monolithic restoration and to have a more durable, sealed, and successful restoration, the bond strength between the composite resin and MTA is of utmost importance. The composite resin with favorable bond strength can establish the MTA.

There are little data available on the bond strength between MTA and adhesives or various surface treatments.[5],[6],[7] Therefore, this study was undertaken to compare the effect of different surface treatments on the microshear bond strength of composite resin to the MTA.


   Materials And Methods Top


Forty cylindrical acrylic blocks with a hole as mold were prepared.[8],[9] Holes with 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height were filled with ProRoot MTA (ProRoot MTA, Dentsply Tulsa Dental, USA). The blocks were stored in an incubator at 37°C under 100% humidity for 72 h for final setting. The specimens were divided into four groups, with a specific surface treatment in each performed as follows:

  • Group 1: No surface treatment was performed on MTA
  • Group 2: The surface of MTA was etched with 37.5% phosphoric acid gel (Kerr, Karlsruhe, Germany) for 20 s
  • Group 3: The surface of MTA was sandblasted using an intraoral sandblasting device, Dento-Prep (DK-8721, Daugaard, Denmark), at 7 mm from the surface using 50-μ Al2O3 powder under 30 Psi air pressure for 15 s. The surface was rinsed with air/water syringe and then dried
  • Group 4: The surface of MTA was treated with 9% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Ultradent, USA) for 90 s. Then, one layer of silane (Ultradent, USA) was applied and allowed to dry.


In all the groups, OptiBond Solo Plus (OBSP) adhesive resin (Kerr, Karlsruhe, Germany) was applied to the specimen and then light-cured for 20 s, using an light-emitting diode light-curing unit (Ivoclar Vivadent, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein) at an intensity of 650 mW/cm 2. Then, 1 mm length of prepared Tygon tube, 0.7 mm internal diameter, was placed on the bonding area, and resin composite (Point 4, 3M ESPE, USA) was packed into the tube and light-cured for 40 s.

After being stored at 37°C distilled water for 24 h, all the specimens underwent a 1000-cycle thermocycling procedure at 5/55°C.

Microshear bond strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine (Zwick, Roell Z020, Germany), with a shearing force at a strain rate of 1 mm/min and a 0.5-mm wide chisel.

The failure modes were then evaluated under a stereomicroscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) at ×30. Data were analyzed with Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests. Statistical significance was defined at P< 0.05.

Scanning electron microscopy analysis

Two specimens from each group were prepared using the same special surface treatment for scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation. Subsequent to surface treatment, the specimens were evaluated under SEM (XL30, PHILIPS, Netherlands) after gold-sputtering.


   Results Top


Mean values and standard deviations of microshear bond strength are presented in [Table 1]. Kruskal–Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in microshear bond strength values between the four study groups (P< 0.05). The maximum microshear bond strength was observed in Group 4, which was prepared with HF and silane (26.0 ± 11.0), and the minimum value was observed in Group 3, where sandblasting was used for surface treatment (6.4 ± 3.8).
Table 1: Mean values, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals of microshear bond strength

Click here to view


The results of Mann–Whitney test are presented in [Table 1]. There were significant differences in bond strength values between Group 1 and Groups 3 and 4. In addition, there were significant differences in bond strength values between Group 2 and Group 3 and Group 3 and Group 4.

The majority of fracture modes in the experimental groups were adhesive (82.5%); other fracture modes were cohesive (MTA) in Groups 2 and 4. SEM images of specimens with different surface treatments are shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: (a) SEM of MTA (no surface treatment). (b) SEM of treatment with phosphoric acid. (c) SEM of sandblasted MTA. (d) SEM of MTA treated with hydrofluoric acid (×1000) (SEM: Scanning electron micrograph, MTA: Mineral trioxide aggregate)

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In addition to biocompatibility, bioactivity, and remineralization properties of pulp capping materials, the bond strength of these materials to restorative materials is important. Proper bonding of composite resins to pulp capping biomaterials produces an adhesive interface, which is capable of distributing stresses relatively evenly over the entire bonding area.[10] In this study, different surface treatments were carried out on MTA to bond the composite resin.

The principal ingredients of white MTA include calcium oxide, silica, and bismuth oxide;[11] phosphorous is present in very small amounts in MTA.[12] However, hydroxyapatite crystals are precipitated in phosphate-buffered solution.[13]

Although the chemical composition of MTA precipitates was not examined in the present study, the composition of crystalline structures created on MTA surfaces could be deduced. It was assumed that they are calcium hydroxide and calcium silicate hydrate, which are the principal bonding phases in a hydrated Portland cement-based material.[14],[15]

Under SEM, Group 1 with no surface treatment showed two structural phases, including a crystal phase of calcium phosphate and an amorphous phase of calcium oxide with a granular view [Figure 1]a, which is consistent within the results of some previous studies.[11],[16],[17],[18] The mean microshear bond strength in this group was significantly higher than that in Group 3 (sandblasting and OBSP). The presence of intracrystalline spaces on the MTA surface results in a spongy appearance, which helps in infiltration of resin and results in micromechanical bonding.

In this study, application of phosphoric acid etch on the MTA surface resulted in the removal of crystals and amorphous structures, creating a rough and porous surface that improved adhesion of the resin materials [Figure 1]b. The microshear bond strength in Group 2 was higher than that in Groups 1 and 3. There were no statistically significant differences between phosphoric acid-etched and nonetched groups (Groups 1 and 2). In a study by Oskoee et al.,[10] no significant differences were reported between the shear bond strength of etched and nonetched groups.

A study used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the effects of acid etching on surface characteristics of MTA and showed that the disordered structure and spindle-shaped crystals were removed during the process;[19] therefore, the selective removal of the matrix surrounding the crystals results in a sponge-like surface suitable for bonding to composite resins with no significant effect on MTA structure.

Phosphoric acid treatment eroded the crystalline structure on the white MTA surface, creating a cracked surface that contained internal pores. Consistent with the results of the present study, the characteristic etching pattern on MTA as a result of phosphoric acid treatment was reported previously,[19] suggesting that phosphoric acid might contribute to a reliable micromechanical bonding of the etch-and-rinse adhesive system to MTA.[7]

Based on the results of this study, the minimum bond strength was recorded in Group 3. Sandblasting of the surface with 50-μ alumina resulted in a homogeneous appearance with lower pore depths compared to acid-etching under SEM [Figure 1]c. The low bond strength value in this group was attributed to fewer pores, which can be a result of sandblasting without the use of silane because as noted previously, application of silane for the preservation of bonding is critical after sandblasting.[20],[21],[22]

Maximum bond strength was recorded in Group 4 in the present study. Application of 9% HF for 90 s resulted in a homogenously porous appearance under SEM [Figure 1]d. HF can remove all the smear layers on the surface and etch the silica and the boundaries between the phases. Application of silane after etching improved the wetting and served as a chemical bonding agent. It is a bifunctional molecule, reacting with the hydroxyl groups of the silica phases on one side and bonding to copolymerized resin from the other side.[23]

It seems that the stronger acidic treatment resulted in a more destructive surface than the weaker acidic treatment, and the eroded surface enhanced the bond strength.[7]

Several studies have reported the presence of different amounts of silica in the MTA phase. Torabinejad et al. showed 2.47% and 6% silica in the crystal and amorphous phases, respectively.[17] In addition, Dammaschke et al. reported the presence of tricalcium and dicalcium silicate in MTA crystals.[16] In the present study, the highest bond strength value (26.01 MPa) was recorded in Group 4, which was attributed to the combination of the chemical bond between silane and the etched silica groups on MTA, as well as the micromechanical bonding caused by the rough MTA surface.

In this study, cohesive (MTA) fracture modes were seen in Groups 2 and 4. A previous study reported that the bond is acceptable when fracture occurs within each material rather than in the bonded interface (i.e., cohesive rather than adhesive).[24]


   Conclusions Top


High values of microshear bond strength means obtained in this study can be explained by surface porosities and micromechanical bonding mechanism. Maximum bond strength in HF and silane treated group could be related to the chemical bonding between silica groups on MTA surface and the silane molecules.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Vice Chancellery for Research, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, for financial support (#385071).

Financial support and sponsorship

This report is based on a Grant (#385071) submitted to the Vice Chancellery for Research, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: A comprehensive literature review – Part III: Clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 2010;36:400-13.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Wolanek GA, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, Kimbrough WF, Volkmann KR. In vitro bacterial penetration of endodontically treated teeth coronally sealed with a dentin bonding agent. J Endod 2001;27:354-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Galvan RR Jr., West LA, Liewehr FR, Pashley DH. Coronal microleakage of five materials used to create an intracoronal seal in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2002;28:59-61.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Savadi Oskoee S, Bahari M, Kimyai S, Motahhari P, Eghbal MJ, Asgary S, et al. Shear bond strength of calcium enriched mixture cement and mineral trioxide aggregate to composite resin with two different adhesive systems. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11:665-71.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Jaberi-Ansari Z, Mahdilou M, Ahmadyar M, Asgary S. Bond strength of composite resin to pulp capping biomaterials after application of three different bonding systems. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2013;7:152-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
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;41:1691-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
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;40:1210-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
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;16:550-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
9.
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;51:175-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Oskoee SS, Kimyai S, Bahari M, Motahari P, Eghbal MJ, Asgary S, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of calcium-enriched mixture cement and mineral trioxide aggregate to composite resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12:457-62.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Asgary S, Parirokh M, Eghbal MJ, Brink F. Chemical differences between white and gray mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2005;31:101-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M, Ghoddusi J, Kheirieh S, Brink F, et al. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate's composition with Portland cements and a new endodontic cement. J Endod 2009;35:243-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M, Ghoddusi J. Effect of two storage solutions on surface topography of two root-end fillings. Aust Endod J 2009;35:147-52.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Smith JB, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, Rueggeberg FA, Whitford GM, Pashley DH, et al. Metrologic evaluation of the surface of white MTA after the use of two endodontic irrigants. J Endod 2007;33:463-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Reyes-Carmona JF, Felippe MS, Felippe WT. Biomineralization ability and interaction of mineral trioxide aggregate and white Portland cement with dentin in a phosphate-containing fluid. J Endod 2009;35:731-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Dammaschke T, Gerth HU, Züchner H, Schäfer E. Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements. Dent Mater 2005;21:731-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Torabinejad M, Hong CU, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 1995;21:349-53.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Di Silvio L, Pitt Ford TR. The chemical constitution and biocompatibility of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J 2005;38:834-42.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kayahan MB, Nekoofar MH, Kazandaǧ M, Canpolat C, Malkondu O, Kaptan F, et al. Effect of acid-etching procedure on selected physical properties of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2009;42:1004-14.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kussano CM, Bonfante G, Batista JG, Pinto JH. Evaluation of shear bond strength of composite to porcelain according to surface treatment. Braz Dent J 2003;14:132-5.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Güler AU, Yilmaz F, Ural C, Güler E. Evaluation of 24-hour shear bond strength of resin composite to porcelain according to surface treatment. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:156-60.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Ozcan M. Evaluation of alternative intra-oral repair techniques for fractured ceramic-fused-to-metal restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:194-203.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Craig's Restorative Dental Materials. 13th ed. India: Elsevier; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Tate WH, Friedl KH, Powers JM. Bond strength of composites to hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 1996;21:147-52.  Back to cited text no. 24
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Prof. Maryam Khoroushi
Dental Materials Research Center and Department of Operative Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_201_16

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials And Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed591    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded210    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal