Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 260
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 292-296

Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine

1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey
3 Vocational School of Health Services, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Fatih Tulumbaci
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_97_17

Rights and Permissions

Significance of Study: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (calcium silicate-based materials) have great importance in dentistry. There is no study comparing the bond strength of Biodentine and MTA for composite, compomer, and compomer or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC). Although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; in this study, MTA has shown better shear bond strength (SBS) to restorative materials. Aim: Recently, a variety of calcium silicate-based materials are often used for pulp capping, perforation repair, and endodontic therapies. After those treatment procedures, teeth are commonly restored with composite resin, (RMGIC materials in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SBS of composite resin (Filtek™ Z250; 3M ESPE, USA), compomer (Dyract XP; LD Caulk/Dentsply, USA), and resin-modified glass ionomer (Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap; 3M ESPE, USA) to white MTA and Biodentine. Materials and Methods: Ninety acrylic cylindrical blocks were prepared and divided into two groups (n = 45). The acrylic blocks were randomly allocated into 3 subgroups; Group-1A: MTA + composite (Filtek™ Z250), Group-1B: MTA + compomer (Dyract XP), Group-1C: MTA + RMGIC (Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap), Group-2A: Biodentine + composite, Group-2B: Biodentine + compomer, Group-2C: Biodentine + RMGIC. The specimens were mounted in Universal Testing Machine. A crosshead speed 1 mm/min was applied to each specimen using a knife-edge blade until the bond between the MTA/Biodentine and restorative material failed. Failure modes of each group were evaluated under polarized light microscope at ×40 magnification. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between MTA + Composite resin with MTA + Compomer; and MTA + RMGIC with Biodentine + RMGIC (P > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between other groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The results of the present study displayed that although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; MTA has shown better SBS to compomer and composite resin materials than Biodentine.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded335    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal