Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 968
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 292-295
Shear bond strength of composite resin to resin-modified glass ionomer cement using 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-free adhesive system


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, MGV's KBH Dental College, Nashik, Maharashtra, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission08-Oct-2018
Date of Decision28-Jan-2019
Date of Acceptance26-Apr-2019
Date of Web Publication03-Jul-2019
 

   Abstract 

Background: Sandwich technique combines the properties of both composite resin and glass ionomer cement to make the most of the physical and esthetic properties of each material. Bonding agents improve the wettability of GIC surface and improves the bond between composite resin and GIC. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare shear bond strength of composite resin to resin modified glass ionomer cement using HEMA-based and HEMA-free adhesive systems. An in vitro study.
Materials and Methods: Total 30 disc-shaped samples were prepared with resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Samples were divided into three groups, each group containing 10 samples. Group I (n=10): Nano-hybrid composite resin (NHCR) was bonded to RMGIC without any adhesive system. Group II (n=10): NHCR was bonded to RMGIC using hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA)-based adhesive system. Group III (n=10): NHCR was bonded to RMGIC using HEMA-free adhesive system. The shear bond strength was tested using Universal testing Machine and the results were calculated using one way ANOVA and Post-Hoc test.
Results: Maximum shear bond strength was recorded in group III where HEMA-free adhesive used with a mean value of 6.13±1.859 MPa followed by group II where HEMA-based adhesive used with mean value of 4.38±1.533 MPa. The control group showed least shear bond strength.
Conclusion: Application of HEMA-free adhesive (OptiBond All-In-One) resulted in greater shear bond strength between RMGIC and composite resin than HEMA-based adhesive (Single bond Universal Adhesive).

Keywords: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based adhesive; 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-free adhesive; bonding agent; sandwich technique

How to cite this article:
Pandey SA, Lokhande MT, Gulve MN, Kolhe SJ, Aher GB. Shear bond strength of composite resin to resin-modified glass ionomer cement using 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-free adhesive system. J Conserv Dent 2019;22:292-5

How to cite this URL:
Pandey SA, Lokhande MT, Gulve MN, Kolhe SJ, Aher GB. Shear bond strength of composite resin to resin-modified glass ionomer cement using 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-free adhesive system. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21];22:292-5. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2019/22/3/292/262017

   Introduction Top


Glass ionomer cement (GIC) was introduced in the 1970s by Wilson and Kent. One of the important qualities of GIC is its property to release fluoride that provides anticariogenic effect. Other than this, it provides chemical adhesion to the tooth structure, biocompatibility, and low cytotoxicity.[1] To improve the physical and chemical properties of conventional GICs, resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) was introduced.[2],[3]

Composite resins are used in both anterior and posterior restoration due to its esthetic properties. However, there are some disadvantages of composite resins such as polymerization shrinkage, microleakage, and pulpal irritation.[1] To reduce microleakage at restoration margins, GIC is used as a base beneath composite resin restoration. This is also known as “laminate restoration” or “sandwich technique.” This technique was developed by McLean in 1985 to seal cavities and reduce microleakage.[1],[2] This technique combines the properties of both composite resin and GIC to provide dentin adhesion, fluoride release, as well as esthetics and polishability.[3],[4] The rationale behind the technique is to make the most of the physical and esthetic properties of each material, as it combines the dentin adhesion and fluoride release of glass ionomer as well as the esthetics and polishability of resin.[5],[6]

Bonding agents improve the wettability of GIC surface and improve the bond between composite resin and GIC or its modified types.[2] Adhesive agents have undergone various modifications such as changes in viscosity, modification of primers, and addition of nanofillers to improve the bond strength between the tooth and composite resin.[7] 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) is a water-soluble methacrylate monomer frequently present in dental adhesives. It enhances the wetting properties of dental adhesives, and thereby, positively influences bond strength to dentin.[8] However, studies have shown that restorations bonded with HEMA-containing adhesives are more susceptible to water absorption and hydrolytic degradation.[9] Some studies have shown that removal of HEMA from self-etch adhesives would minimize water sorption, while others have observed that HEMA would be beneficial for the adhesive system.[10] HEMA is considered one of the most potent allergens among the monomers.[11] Fast penetration of noncured monomers through the skin and gloves can cause contact dermatitis in dental personnel.[12] The disadvantages of HEMA have led to the introduction of HEMA-free less hydrophilic adhesives which may show reduced water sorption, higher stability of mechanical properties, stability of interfacial bond, improvement in bonding durability, and reduced allergenic potential.[13]

During the restoration of deep Class II cavities, GIC, and resin interface may communicate with the oral environment. This may lead to bond failure. Different studies [1],[3],[5],[6],[13] have been carried out to measure shear bond strength between GIC and composite. However, literature has failed to reveal the comparison of the shear bond strength after use of HEMA-based and HEMA-free adhesives. On this background, the aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of composite resin to RMGIC using HEMA-based and HEMA-free adhesive system.

The null hypothesis of this study is that there is no difference in the shear bond strength of composite resin to RMGIC using HEMA-based and HEMA-free adhesive system.


   Materials and Methods Top


RMGIC (Fuji II LC, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA) bonded to the nanohybrid composite (Filtek Z-250 XT 3M ESPE, St. Paul USA) using two different bonding agents, HEMA-based adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2-3M ESPE, St. Paul USA) and HEMA-free adhesive system (OptiBond All–In-One; Kerr Co, Orange, CA, USA.) Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Committee.

Preparation of specimens

A total of 30 disc-shaped samples of light-cured RMGIC (Fuji II LC, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA) were prepared using stainless steel molds (10-mm diameter and 2-mm thickness). The RMGIC was manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and filled in the molds. The surface of the filled mold was pressed with a glass slide and light cured for 30 s using a light cure unit (LED Light Curing system, Kerr Corp, Orange, CA, USA). Specimens were randomly divided into three groups of ten specimens each, the groups were as follows:

  • Group I (n = 10): Control group. RMGIC ( Fuji II LC, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA) and composite resin (Filtek Z-250 XT 3M ESPE, St. Paul USA) were bonded without using any adhesive system
  • Group II (n = 10): RMGIC (Fuji II LC, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA) and composite resin (Filtek Z-250 XT 3M ESPE, St. Paul USA) were bonded with HEMA-based adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2-3M ESPE, St. Paul USA). The adhesive agent was applied using applicator tip and air-dried with air syringe followed by light-curing for 30s
  • Group III (n = 10): RMGIC (Fuji II LC, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA) and composite resin (Filtek Z-250 XT 3M ESPE, St. Paul USA) bonded with HEMA-free adhesive (OptiBond All-In-One; Kerr Co, Orange, CA, USA). The adhesive agent was applied using the applicator tip and air with air syringe followed by light curing for 30s.


After this procedure, a transparent plastic ring, 6 mm height and 5 mm internal diameter, was centered over RMGIC. The composite resin was condensed into a transparent plastic ring using incremental curing technique, with each increment of 2 mm following curing the plastic ring was removed. All the procedures were carried out at the room temperature.

The samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 h prior to shear bond strength testing.

The samples were placed in between the jigs of universal testing machine (Model UNITEST-10, Instron Corp, USA), and a pointed shearing rod was placed on composite resin and RMGIC sample interface. It was subjected to static loading at a rate of 0.5 mm/min until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and post hoc test.


   Results Top


The null hypothesis for this study was rejected as the difference between the experimental groups was found to be statistically significant.

One-way analysis of variance test

Mean shear bond strength of the tested groups are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of shear bond strength values (MPa) in the groups under the study of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement bond to the composite using different adhesive systems

Click here to view


The maximum shear bond strength values were recorded in Group III, showing a mean value of 6.13 ± 1.859 MPa compared to Group II with mean shear bond strength of 4.38 ± 1.533 MPa. Control group, where no adhesive was used, showed the least mean shear bond strength of 1.75 ± 0.479 MPa for restoration, as shown in [Table 1]. Pair-wise comparison between these groups revealed that the difference of shear bond strength was statistically highly significant as shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Intergroup comparison and its statistical significance

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The sandwich technique has been advocated to restore deep proximal cavity where isolation is questionable.[14] In this study to simulate sandwich restoration, composite resin was bonded over RMGIC disc. Some studies have suggested that application of RMGIC instead of conventional GIC provide better mechanical properties, more resistance to moisture, reduction in microleakage, and higher bond strength to composite resin.[15] The inclusion of resin in RMGIC resulted in the formation of resin tags in dentinal tubules and allowed the material to polymerize upon light activation, that supplemented chemical bond that GIC achieves with the tooth structure by bonding micromechanically. This double adhesion mechanism is the main determined of retention and provide better marginal sealing and reduce the microleakage.[16] RMGIC used in sandwich technique reduces the bulk of overlined composite material, thereby reducing polymerization shrinkage and enhance the marginal adaptation.[14]

Composite restorations in the oral cavity are routinely exposed to thermal changes. The material should be tested after 24 h of storage in water or after thermocycling process.[17] Thermocycling is a questionable method in in vitro studies because of variation in thermocycling temperature and lack of standardization, but in most of the studies, the temperature was set at 5°C–55°C ± 2°C and dwell time was 15 s.[18] The disadvantage of this method is that, the temperature used to stress restorations may not be the real temperatures of cold and hot food/beverage tolerated intraorally, and the increase in dwell time exceeds real clinical condition which leads to fatigue of composite material which may adversely affect the mechanical properties.[18] On this background, all the samples were kept in water for 24 h prior to testing instead of thermocycling.

Dental adhesive provides retention to composite resin and withstand mechanical forces. Furthermore, a good adhesive should be able to prevent leakage at the margins of restoration. Clinically, failure of restorations occurs more often due to inadequate sealing.[19] The total-etch adhesive systems need etching before applying. The etching and rinsing process may remove calcium and aluminum from glass ionomer and reduce the cohesive strength of it.[20]

Dental adhesives improve bond between GIC and composite by producing a rough surface in which glass particles stand out above the matrix, thus the resin is able to penetrate into micropores between the particles and providing mechanical interlocking.[21]

The self-etch approach either two- or one-step adhesives are more user-friendly due to time-saving and simplified procedure.[3] HEMA is a hydrophilic monomer present in the adhesive system, and it acts as a cosolvent and minimizes phase separation, thus increasing miscibility of hydrophobic and hydrophilic component in the solution.[9] HEMA-containing adhesives are more susceptible to water contamination, as HEMA in the uncured adhesive may absorb water which can lead to dilution of monomers to the extent that polymerization is inhibited.[20]

Presence of acidic monomer into the primer of self-etch adhesive system causes penetration of monomer; and hence, it does not require etching as a separate step. Acidic monomers increase wetness of the dentin, so the presence of HEMA in these adhesives would not be necessary.[9] After polymerization, HEMA will exhibit hydrophilic properties and will lead to water uptake and consequent swelling and discoloration, as it is fixed in polymer chain for longer time.[22] It also adversely influences the mechanical strength. Furthermore, high amounts of HEMA will result in flexible polymers with inferior quality.[23]

Both HEMA-free adhesive (OptiBond All-In-One) (pH = 2.5) and HEMA-based adhesive (Adper single Bond) (pH = 2.7) are acidic in nature, thus it improves the bond between RMGIC and composite resin, as it dissolves superficial surface of GIC.[5] HEMA-free adhesive has acetone and ethanol that balance solvent evaporation and maintain the wetness of the substrate.[9] Another explanation for good performance of HEMA-free adhesive is that it contains glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate monomer, a surfactant monomer that facilitates the penetration of hydrophobic component and reducing phase separation.[24]

Limitation of study, in this in vitro study, shear bond strength of composite over RMGIC has been evaluated. Although in clinical situations, composite and RMGIC will be bonded to cavity surfaces, which will further affect the shear bond strength clinically. Hence, further studies are necessary to simulate such an intraoral condition.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limits of the above study, it was concluded that:

  • Application of bonding system results in an increase in shear bond strength between RMGIC and composite resin
  • Application of HEMA-free adhesive (OptiBond All-In-One) resulted in greater shear bond strength between RMGIC and composite resin compared with HEMA-based adhesive (Single bond Universal Adhesive).


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Gopikrishna V, Abarajithan M, Krithikadatta J, Kandaswamy D. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to GIC using three different adhesives. Oper Dent 2009;34:467-71.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mathis RS, Ferracane JL. Properties of a glass-ionomer/resin-composite hybrid material. Dent Mater 1989;5:355-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kandaswamy D, Rajan KJ, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to glass-ionomer cement using self-etching bonding agents with different pH:In vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:27-31.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
4.
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;43:81-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
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. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
6.
Arora V, Kundabala M, Parolia A, Thomas MS, Pai V. Comparison of the shear bond strength of RMGIC to a resin composite using different adhesive systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:80-3.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. The role of HEMA in one-step self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2008;24:1412-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Bacelar-Sá R, Giannini M, Ambrosano GM, Bedran-Russo AK. Dentin sealing and bond strength evaluation of Hema-free and multi-mode adhesives to biomodified dentin. Braz Dent J 2017;28:731-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Felizardo KR, Lemos LV, de Carvalho RV, Gonini Junior A, Lopes MB, Moura SK. Bond strength of HEMA-containing versus HEMA-free self-etch adhesive systems to dentin. Braz Dent J 2011;22:468-72.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Aljafari A, Abuzaina O, Qari M, Banakhar N, Bakry AS, Jamleh A, et al. Time sensitivity associated with application of HEMA-free adhesive. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2016;4:00109.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Wallenhammar LM, Ortengren U, Andreasson H, Barregård L, Björkner B, Karlsson S, et al. Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:192-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
van Dijken JW. A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of two HEMA-free adhesives, a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etch-and-rinse, in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2013;29:e271-80.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Subrata G, Davidson CL. The effect of various surface treatments on the shear strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cement. J Dent 1989;17:28-32.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Arora V, Nikhil V, Sawani S, Arora P. The open sandwich technique with glass ionomer cement – A critical evaluation. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Tchnol 2013;2:3874-82.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Boruziniat A, Gharaei S. Bond strength between composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer using different adhesive systems and curing techniques. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:150-4.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
16.
Uno S, Finger WJ, Fritz U. Long-term mechanical characteristics of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 1996;12:64-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Elekdag-Turk S, Turk T, Isci D, Ozkalayci N. Thermocycling effects on shear bond strength of a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod 2008;78:351-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Pazinatto FB, Campos BB, Costa LC, Atta MT. Effect of the number of thermocycles on microleakage of resin composite restorations. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003;17:337-41.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007;28:3757-85.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Jacobsen T, Söderholm KJ. Some effects of water on dentin bonding. Dent Mater 1995;11:132-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Sikri VK. Bonding in dentistry. Textbook of Operative Dentistry. 4th ed. New Delhi: CBS Publishers; 2016. p. 356-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Burrow MF, Inokoshi S, Tagami J. Water sorption of several bonding resins. Am J Dent 1999;12:295-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater 2001;17:296-308.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Guo X, Spencer P, Wang Y, Ye Q, Yao X, Williams K, et al. Effects of a solubility enhancer on penetration of hydrophobic component in model adhesives into wet demineralized dentin. Dent Mater 2007;23:1473-81.  Back to cited text no. 24
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Srishti Anil Pandey
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, MGV's KBH Dental College, Nashik, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_456_18

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

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
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed129    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded48    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal