| |
|
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 17
| Issue : 2 | Page : 150-154 |
|
| Bond strength between composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer using different adhesive systems and curing techniques |
|
|
Alireza Boruziniat1, Samineh Gharaei2
1 Restorative Dentistry, Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Mashhad, Iran
2 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, Iran
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Submission | 24-Sep-2013 |
| Date of Decision | 23-Dec-2013 |
| Date of Acceptance | 30-Dec-2013 |
| Date of Web Publication | 1-Mar-2014 |
|
|
 |
|
 Abstract | | |
Aim: To evaluate bond strength between RMGI and composite using different adhesive systems and curing techniques.
Materials and Methods: Sixty prepared samples of RMGI were randomly divided into six groups according to adhesive systems (total-etch, two-step self-etch and all-in-one) and curing techniques (co-curing and pre-curing). In co-curing technique, the adhesive systems were applied on uncured RMGI samples and co-cured together. In the pre-curing technique, before application of adhesive systems, the RMGI samples were cured. Composite layers were applied and shear bond strength was measured. Two samples of each group were evaluated by SEM. Failure mode was determined by streomicroscope.
Results: Both curing methods and adhesive systems had significant effect on bond strength (P-value < 0.05). There was an interaction between two factors (P-value <0.05). Both self-etch adhesives had significantly higher shear bond strength than the total-etch adhesive (P-value <0.05). The co-curing technique improved the bond strength in self-etch adhesives, but decreased the bond strength in total-etch adhesive (P-value<0.05).
Conclusion: The application of self-etch adhesive systems and co-curing technique can improve the bond strength between the RMGI and composite. Keywords: Co-cure technique and bond strength; resin composite; resin modified glass ionomer; sandwich technique
How to cite this article:
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 |
How to cite this URL:
Boruziniat A, Gharaei S. Bond strength between composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer using different adhesive systems and curing techniques. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2023 Sep 27];17:150-4. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2014/17/2/150/128055 |
| Introduction | |  |
Improvements in the mechanical properties of composite resins and esthetic needs have brought about an increase in the application of these materials. Weak bonding to dentin surface remains, however, is deemed as one of the major problems of composite resin restorations especially in gingival floor of cavities. [1] Application of low elastic modulus materials such as flowable composites, glass ionomer (GI) or resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) under the composite restorations, known as sandwich technique is one of suggested methods for improving the bond strength to dentin.
In traditional sandwich technique introduced by McLean, conventional GI was used. [2] The bond strength between GI and composite was weak and various methods have been suggested for improving the bond strength including application of acid or resin coating on unset or maturated GI. [3],[4],[5] In spite of the fact that bond strength is fairly improved by these methods, low tensile strength of GI is still reported to cause cohesive fracture in GI before deboning occurred in the interface. [6]
Some studies suggest the application of RMGI instead of GI in sandwich technique due to better mechanical properties, more resistant to moisture and higher bond strength to composite, [2],[7],[8],[9] RMGI can bond chemically to composite through co-polymerization of un-reacted monomer (hydroxyethyl methacrylate [HEMA]) in air-inhibited layer of surperfacial surface of cured RMGI with adhesive systems or composite resins. Furthermore, it may provide covalent chemical bond between adhesive resin systems and residual monomer in polyacid chains within the cured RMGI. [8],[10],[11]
The total - etch adhesive systems that need etching before applying have widely been used in restorative procedures. The etching and rinsing processes may remove calcium and aluminum from GI and reduce the cohesive strength of it. However, there are contradictory results reported in the literature about the effects of acid etching on bond strength of RMGI to composite. Etching of RMGI may have no effect, [10],[12] adverse effect, [8],[13] or improving effect on bond strength. [14]
The self-etch approach either two-or one-step adhesives are more user-friendly due to the time-saving and simplified procedure. The application of self-etch adhesives on GI or RMGI improve the bond strength to composite in comparison with total etch adhesives. [2],[9],[15],[16]
In co-curing technique, two different light-cured materials were coincidently polymerized. [17] Knight el al. [18] in their study suggested the application of co-curing technique for RMGI and composite can decrease the internal stress in composite restorations and also reduce the clinical steps. Furthermore, simultaneous curing of RMGI with composite increases the bond strength between GI and composite. [17] A study by Tulunoglu et al. [19] applied a co-curing technique for coincident polymerization of different adhesive systems with RMGI and concluded that although this method may increase in micro-leakage in self-etch adhesive, but, it has no significant effect in three-or two-step total-etch adhesives.
The authors' assumption was that simultaneous curing of RMGI and adhesive systems may increase penetration of adhesive systems into RMGI before curing and so the bond strength will improve. Hence, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of RMGI to composite resin, using different adhesive systems with co-/pre-curing techniques. The null hypotheses were as follows:
- The application of different adhesive systems has no effect on SBS between RMGI and composite.
- The curing techniques (co-or pre-curing) have no effect on SBS.
| Materials and Methods | | |
A total of 60 specimens of RMGI (Fuji II LC, GC co; Japan) were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions, filled in 2 mm height of the transparent plastic rings (2 mm diameter Χ 6 mm height) and kept uncured. The surface of RMGI samples were flattened by hand instrument and divided into two groups of 30. Two different curing techniques were applied: In pre-curing technique, the prepared RMGI specimens were stored in a dark environment for 1 min and then light cured (Blue Phase C8, Ivoclar Vivadent; Schaan, Lichtenstien) at 800 mW/cm 2 for 20 s. The specimens were randomly divided into three subgroups of ten according to adhesive systems (total-etch, two-step self-etch and one-step self-etch) were applied. The adhesive systems used in this study are listed in [Table 1]. In the total-etch group, acid etch was applied for 15 s, rinsed for 10 s and air dried. Each adhesive system was used according to manufacturer's instructions and light cured at 800 mW/cm 2 for 20 s. The intensity of the irradiation was measured by radiometer before application. In co-curing groups, the procedure is similar to the former group, after 1 min of storage in a dark environment; however, uncured RMGI samples are coincidently cured with adhesive systems applied on it. Then, two layers of 2 mm Heliomolar composite (Ivoclar Vivadent; Schaan, Lichtenstien) were placed in plastic ring and each layer was cured for 40 s. All procedures were performed by a single operator. Samples were stored in 100% humidity for 48 h and then SBS was measured by Zwick universal testing machine (Zwick/Z250, Type KAP-Z, Zwick Roell Group; Ulm, Germany) at cross head speed of 1 mm/min. Two samples of each group were prepared for scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation. The SEM micrographs were made at Χ1000 magnification for visual inspection. Failure mode was determined by streo-microscope evaluation (LEO, 1450 UP, Zeiss; Oberkochen, Germany) and classified as adhesive, cohesive of composite, cohesive of RMGI and mixed. The data were collected in SPSS version 11.5 software (SPSS Inc., IL, Chicago). Normal distribution of the data was confirmed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, Tukey's post-hoc and independent t-tests with a pre-set significance level of 0.05. | Table 1: The composition and application method of adhesive system were used
Click here to view |
| Results | | |
Bond strength
The SBS of various groups is presented in [Table 2]. Two-way ANOVA showed that both variables (curing technique and type of adhesive systems) had a significant effect on SBS (P = 0.04 for curing technique and P = 0.00 for adhesive systems). Furthermore, there was an interaction between two variables (P = 0.00). Tukey's post-hoc test indicated that both self-etch adhesive systems provide higher bond strength than the total-etch adhesive system (P < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between two self-etch adhesive systems. Independent t-test presented that the application of co-curing technique increased the SBS in the both of self-etch adhesive systems (P = 0.001 for AdheSE and P = 0.04 for AdheSE One F) but, decreased the SBS in total-etch adhesive system (P = 0.015). | Table 2: The mean shear bond strength values (MPa) of experimental groups
Click here to view |
Failure modes
The distributions of failure mode in the various experimental groups are displayed in [Table 3].
SEM analysis
In the total-etch pre-cured group, severe crack and voids was observed in composite-adhesive interface while in the co-cured group of this adhesive, severe crack and voids appeared in RMGI-adhesive interface. In both self-etch adhesive systems either pre-cured or co-cured, no crack or void was observed in the two interfaces. In the co-cured two-step self-etch adhesive group, the obvious resin tags formation at resin-RMGI interface was observed.
| Discussion | | |
The results of current study reject both of the hypotheses:
- Adhesive systems and
- Curing technique have no effect on SBS.
Among the three different adhesive systems applied, the total-etch adhesive has the lowest value of SBS. This finding is similar to the results of the other studies. [9],[16] Acid etching and rinsing are important factors that will possibly have significant effect on bond strength. A study by Bracket and Huget [14] demonstrated that the application of acid etching can improve the bond strength between RMGI and composite. In contrast, Kerby and Knobloch [8] demonstrated this procedure can decrease the bond strength through a partial elimination of HEMA and un-reacted methacrylate groups in air-inhibited layer. However, some studies showed the inhibition or decreasing of penetration of acid into RMGI due to the high resin content and formation of polymeric matrix. [12],[20] Therefore, they concluded that acid etching has no significant effect on bond strength of RMGI to composite. [12],[20]
The application of adhesive systems may improve the bond strength between composite and RMGI or traditional GI. [16],[21] In the current study, both self-etch adhesive systems had higher SBS than the total-etch adhesive. This finding is consistent with the results obtained by Arora et al. [9] and Kasraie et al. [16] Similarly, Kandaswamy et al. [2] concluded that mild self-etch adhesive had higher bond strength than the strong self-etch or total etch adhesive when they were applied on the unset GI cement. Gopikrishna et al. [15] demonstrated that the application of self-etch primer on unset GI improved the bond strength in comparison with application of this adhesive or total-etch adhesive on set GI. Another important factor should be mentioned is viscosity of adhesive systems. The lower the viscosity adhesive used, the better the bond strength may be achieved, [16],[22] Uncured HEMA in the surface of RMGI may improve the wetting ability of adhesive resins. [23] The observation of noticeable resin tags formation in SEM micrographs of co-cured two-step self-etch adhesive group may be due to lower viscosity or better wet ability of this adhesive. The penetration of resin into RMGIs may improve the strength of these cements and therefore, the failure mode may change. [24] Evaluation of the failure mode in this group showed that the number of cohesive failure of RMGI decreased and mixed failure was the most frequently failure mode was observed.
In the total-etch co-cured group, acid was applied before formation of the resinous matrix so, acid could penetrate more into RMGI. Effect of acid on this uncured RMGI is somewhat similar to the traditional GI. The formation of weak salt on the surface of RMGI, [2] removing or decreasing calcium and aluminum ions that reduce the tensile strength of RMGI [25] and reduction in HEMA content [8] may be explanations for reduction of bond strength in this experimental group. Furthermore, the increase of the cohesive failure mode in this group, in comparison with the other groups, points out the weakening effect of acid application on the uncured RMGI structure. SEM analysis showed the cracks and voids in RMGI-resin adhesive interface that further confirmed this hypothesis. Polymerization stress of composite might create these cracks and voids.
There are contradictions about the failure mode observed in the previous studies since they reported the cohesive failure of GI/RMGI, [12] mixed [26] or adhesive as the most failure mode observed. [23] In the current study, the most of specimens in total-etch co-cured group fractured cohesively in RMGI that remarks the detrimental effect of acid etching on uncured RMGI. In other groups, adhesive or mixed failure modes were the most observed failure modes.
In SEM micrographs of two self-etch groups, no cracks and voids in any interfaces was observed. These merged margins in SEM evaluation may indicate a chemical bond formation. [17] Gopikrishna et al. [15] concluded that the carboxylic groups in self-etch primer can chemically bond with calcium in GI as they bond to calcium of hydroxyapatite in dentin.
The other factor to keep in mind is that leaching the metallic ions during the etching and rinsing procedure can decrease the mechanical properties of GI. [15] Hence, in the current study acid-etch was applied after 1 min - that's an acceptable time for clinical use-until acid-base reaction induced rather initial setting and reduced the leaching the metallic ions. However, this problem may be important only for the total-etch group.
Thickness and tensile strength of GI cement, type, viscosity and stress polymerization of composite, handling procedure and total removing the residual acid (if acid etch was applied) are other certain factors may affect the bond strength between GI or RMGI and the composite. [6],[10],[12],[23]
In the current study, all adhesives are chosen from the same manufacturer, so that they will be only slightly different in chemical compositions that may affect the bond strength. In this condition, different application methods of these adhesives may have more effect on SBS than the little chemical composition differences.
| Conclusion | | |
The application of co-curing technique and self-etch adhesive systems may improve the SBS between composite and RMGI.
The authors suggested to evaluate the effect of the co-curing technique and the self-etch adhesive in clinical situation in future research. Furthermore, the assessment of the application of co-curing technique on bond strength of GI based-adhesives is required.
| Acknowledgement | | |
The Results Presented in this Study have been taken from a Student thesis (no: 2480).
| References | | |
| 1. | Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater 2010;26:7-12. 
[PUBMED] |
| 2. | 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.
[PUBMED]  |
| 3. | 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.
[PUBMED] |
| 4. | Welbury RR, McCabe JF, Murray JJ, Rusby S. Factors affecting the bond strength of composite resin to etched glass-ionomer cement. J Dent 1988;16:188-93.
[PUBMED] |
| 5. | Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK, Phillips RW. Effect of the bonding agent on the bond strength between glass ionomer cement and composite resin. Quintessence Int 1989;20:31-5.
[PUBMED] |
| 6. | Woolford M. Composite resin attached to glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement - The laminate technique. J Dent 1993;21:31-8.
[PUBMED] |
| 7. | Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JW, Hörstedt P. Modified Class II open sandwich restorations: Evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:270-5.
|
| 8. | Kerby RE, Knobloch L. The relative shear bond strength of visible light-curing and chemically curing glass-ionomer cement to composite resin. Quintessence Int 1992;23:641-4.
|
| 9. | 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.
[PUBMED] |
| 10. | Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, Bahari M, Rikhtegaran S, Ghojazadeh M. Effect of acid and laser etching on shear bond strength of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements to composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:305-11.
|
| 11. | Li J, Liu Y, Liu Y, Söremark R, Sundström F. Flexure strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements and their bond strength to dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand 1996;54:55-8.
|
| 12. | Taher NM, Ateyah NZ. Shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement bonded to different tooth-colored restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:25-34.
|
| 13. | Sidhu SK, Watson TF. Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 1995;8:59-67.
|
| 14. | Brackett WW, Huget EF. The effect of etchant and cement age on the adhesion of resin composite to conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1996;27:57-61.
|
| 15. | 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.
|
| 16. | 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.
[PUBMED] |
| 17. | 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.
|
| 18. | Knight GM. The co-cured, light-activated glass-ionomer cement-composite resin restoration. Quintessence Int 1994;25:97-100.
[PUBMED] |
| 19. | Tulunoglu O, Uçtaºh M, Alaçam A, Omürlü H. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique. Oper Dent 2000;25:292-8.
|
| 20. | Tate WH, Friedl KH, Powers JM. Bond strength of composites to hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 1996;21:147-52.
|
| 21. | Woolford MJ, Grieve AR. The use of intermediary resins when bonding glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement to composite resin. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:249-55.
|
| 22. | Mount GJ. The wettability of bonding resins used in the composite resin/glass ionomer 'sandwich technique'. Aust Dent J 1989;34:32-5.
[PUBMED] |
| 23. | 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.
|
| 24. | Oilo G, Um CM. Bond strength of glass-ionomer cement and composite resin combinations. Quintessence Int 1992;23:633-9.
|
| 25. | Leirskar J, Nordbø H, Mount GJ, Ngo H. The influence of resin coating on the shear punch strength of a high strength auto-cure glass ionomer. Dent Mater 2003;19:87-91.
|
| 26. | El-Askary F, Nassif M. Bonding nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer to dentin using different self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 2011;36:413-21.
|
Correspondence Address:
Alireza Boruziniat
Faculty of Dental Research Center, Vakilabad Blvd, P.O. Box 91735-984, Mashhad
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128055
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
The Influence of Saliva and Blood Contamination on Bonding Between Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Resin Composite |
|
| B Mar, M Ekambaram, KC Li, J Zwirner, ML Mei | | Operative Dentistry. 2023; 48(2): 218 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
The Impact of Dental Adhesives on the Shear Bond Strength between Restorations in Sandwich Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
|
| Anju Varughese, Varsha Sam, VP Prabhath Singh, Vineetha Karuveettil, Sapna Chandira Muddappa, Rakesh R Rajan | | Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal. 2023; 7(1): 11 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Assessment of Bond Strength Following Simultaneous Activation of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and Self-etch Adhesive in Primary Molars: In Vitro Study |
|
| Heer Kadhi, Jasmin Winnier, Ishani Ratnaparkhi | | World Journal of Dentistry. 2022; 13(5): 479 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based liners to resin-modified glass ionomer cement in resin composite restorations - a systematic review and meta-analysis |
|
| Akhila Manoj, R. Kavitha, Vineetha Karuveettil, V. P. Prabath Singh, Kaushik Haridas, Krishnan Venugopal | | Evidence-Based Dentistry. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Modified Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer to Composite Resin Using Universal Adhesive in Self-etch and Total-etch Modes
|
|
| Hamid Kermanshah, Ladan R. Omrani, Omid Hemati, Prham Pedram, Elham Ahmadi | | The Open Dentistry Journal. 2020; 14(1): 390 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Surface treatment of RMGIC to composite resin using different photosensitizers and lasers: A bond assessment of closed Sandwich restoration |
|
| Ahmed Ali A. Ghubaryi, Navin Ingle, Mohammed Abdul Basser | | Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy. 2020; 32: 101965 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 6294 | | | Printed | 180 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 455 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 6 | | |
|
|
