.: ORİJİNAL ARAŞTIRMA
Farklı Sertleşme Mekanizmasına Sahip Kaide Materyallerinin Mikrogerilim Bağlanma Dayanımının Değerlendirilmesi: in vitro Bir Çalışma
Evaluation of the Microtensile Bond Strength of Base Materials with Different Setting Mechanisms: An in vitro Study
Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2025;31(1):145-51
doi: 10.5336/dentalsci.2024-104910
Makale Dili: TR
Tam Metin
ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı sertleşme mekanizmasına sahip kaide materyallerinin mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımlarını [microtensile bond strengths (μTBS)] karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada rezin modifiye cam iyonomer (Fuji II LC), yüksek viskoziteli cam iyonomer siman (EQUIA Forte Fil), akışkan fiberle güçlendirilmiş kompozit (everX Flow), biyocam ile güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer siman-biyoaktif kompozit (ACTIVA BioACTIVE- Restorative) ve universal adeziv ajan (Single Bond Universal) kullanılmıştır. Universal adeziv self-etch modunda kullanılmıştır. Toplam 8 insan azı dişi kullanılarak her bir dişten 5 çubuk; toplamda 40 çubuk elde edilmiştir (n=10). Her bir örnek universal test cihazında μTBS testine tabi tutulmuştur. Gruplardaki materyal, dentin arayüzü ve başarısızlık analizleri taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Verileri değerlendirmek için tek yönlü varyans analizi yapıldı ve analiz sonucunda farklılık gösteren grupları bulmak için Tukey testi kullanıldı. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p<0,05 olarak alındı. μTBS değerleri incelendiğinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı en düşük değer EQUIA Forte Fil grubunda, en yüksek değer ise everX Flow grubunda gözlendi (p<0,05). Çalışmada kullandığımız tüm kaide materyallerinde koheziv ve karışık kırık tipleri daha çok görüldü. Sonuç: En yüksek μTBS değerlerine sahip olan akışkan fiberle güçlendirilmiş kompozit grubu diğer materyallere kıyasla daha iyi bir bağlanma sağlayarak klinik başarının artmasını sağlayabilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımı; biyoaktif materyal; cam iyonomer siman; başarısızlık analizi
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı sertleşme mekanizmasına sahip kaide materyallerinin mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımlarını [microtensile bond strengths (μTBS)] karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada rezin modifiye cam iyonomer (Fuji II LC), yüksek viskoziteli cam iyonomer siman (EQUIA Forte Fil), akışkan fiberle güçlendirilmiş kompozit (everX Flow), biyocam ile güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer siman-biyoaktif kompozit (ACTIVA BioACTIVE- Restorative) ve universal adeziv ajan (Single Bond Universal) kullanılmıştır. Universal adeziv self-etch modunda kullanılmıştır. Toplam 8 insan azı dişi kullanılarak her bir dişten 5 çubuk; toplamda 40 çubuk elde edilmiştir (n=10). Her bir örnek universal test cihazında μTBS testine tabi tutulmuştur. Gruplardaki materyal, dentin arayüzü ve başarısızlık analizleri taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Verileri değerlendirmek için tek yönlü varyans analizi yapıldı ve analiz sonucunda farklılık gösteren grupları bulmak için Tukey testi kullanıldı. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p<0,05 olarak alındı. μTBS değerleri incelendiğinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı en düşük değer EQUIA Forte Fil grubunda, en yüksek değer ise everX Flow grubunda gözlendi (p<0,05). Çalışmada kullandığımız tüm kaide materyallerinde koheziv ve karışık kırık tipleri daha çok görüldü. Sonuç: En yüksek μTBS değerlerine sahip olan akışkan fiberle güçlendirilmiş kompozit grubu diğer materyallere kıyasla daha iyi bir bağlanma sağlayarak klinik başarının artmasını sağlayabilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımı; biyoaktif materyal; cam iyonomer siman; başarısızlık analizi
ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) of base materials with different setting mechanisms. Material and Methods: In this study, a resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (EQUIA Forte Fil), a flowable fiber reinforced composite (everX Flow), a bioglass-reinforced glass ionomer cement-Bioactive Composite (ACTIVA BioACTIVE- Restorative) and a universal adhesive agent (Single Bond Universal) were used. Universal adhesive was used in self-etch mode. A total of eight human molars were used, 5 rods from each tooth; 40 rods in total were obtained (n=10). Each sample was tested with μTBS on a universal testing device. The material-dentin interface and fracture types in the groups were evaluated with scanning electron microscope. Results: One-way analysis of variance analysis was performed to evaluate the data and Tukey test was used in pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance level was taken as p<0.05. When the μTBS values were examined, the lowest statistically significant value was observed in the EQUIA Forte Fil group and the highest value was observed in the everX Flow group (p<0.05). Cohesive and mixed fracture types were seen more frequently in all restorative materials used in the study. Conclusion: The flowable fiber reinforced composite group with the highest μTBS values can provide better bonding compared to other materials, thus increasing clinical success.
Keywords: Microtensile bond strength; bioactive material; glass ionomer cement; failure analysis
Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) of base materials with different setting mechanisms. Material and Methods: In this study, a resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (EQUIA Forte Fil), a flowable fiber reinforced composite (everX Flow), a bioglass-reinforced glass ionomer cement-Bioactive Composite (ACTIVA BioACTIVE- Restorative) and a universal adhesive agent (Single Bond Universal) were used. Universal adhesive was used in self-etch mode. A total of eight human molars were used, 5 rods from each tooth; 40 rods in total were obtained (n=10). Each sample was tested with μTBS on a universal testing device. The material-dentin interface and fracture types in the groups were evaluated with scanning electron microscope. Results: One-way analysis of variance analysis was performed to evaluate the data and Tukey test was used in pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance level was taken as p<0.05. When the μTBS values were examined, the lowest statistically significant value was observed in the EQUIA Forte Fil group and the highest value was observed in the everX Flow group (p<0.05). Cohesive and mixed fracture types were seen more frequently in all restorative materials used in the study. Conclusion: The flowable fiber reinforced composite group with the highest μTBS values can provide better bonding compared to other materials, thus increasing clinical success.
Keywords: Microtensile bond strength; bioactive material; glass ionomer cement; failure analysis
REFERANSLAR:
- Manuja N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Nagpal R. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(1):7-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Santini A, Plasschaert AJ, Mitchell S. Marginal leakage of filled dentin adhesives used with wet and dry bonding techniques. Am J Dent. 2000;13(2):93-7. [PubMed]
- Park EY, Kang S. Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2020;37(3):169-78. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Hinoura K, Suzuki H, Onose H. Factors influencing bond strengths between unetched glass ionomers and resins. Oper Dent. 1991;16(3):90-5. [PubMed]
- Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016;7(3):16. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Lazaridou D, Belli R, Krämer N, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Dental materials for primary dentition: are they suitable for occlusal restorations? A two-body wear study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(2):165-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Schwendicke F, Al-Abdi A, Pascual Moscardó A, Ferrando Cascales A, Sauro S. Remineralization effects of conventional and experimental ion-releasing materials in chemically or bacterially-induced dentin caries lesions. Dent Mater. 2019;35(5):772-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Zohaib S, Martí JM, et al. Modifications in glass ionomer cements: nano-sized fillers and bioactive nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(7):1134. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glass-ionomers: from conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013;10(4):411-20. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Basting RT, Serra MC, Rodrigues AL. In situ microhardness evaluation of glass--ionomer/composite resin hybrid materials at different post-irradiation times. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(12):1187-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Attik N, Colon P, Gauthier R, Chevalier C, Grosgogeat B, Abouelleil H. Comparison of physical and biological properties of a flowable fiber reinforced and bulk filling composites. Dent Mater. 2022;38(2):e19-e30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sonarkar S, Purba R. Bioactive materials in conservative dentistry. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev. 2015;2015:1-4. [Crossref]
- Bakir S, Bakir EP, Akbiyik SY. Evaluation of the bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer enhanced with bioactive glass to composite resin with different dental adhesive systems. Analytical and Quantitative Cytopathology and Histopathology. 2021;43(4):235-41. [Link]
- Croll TP, Berg JH, Donly KJ. Dental repair material: a resin-modified glass-ionomer bioactive ionic resin-based composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(1):60-5. [PubMed]
- Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, Dedania MS, Bajpai N. A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa? bioactive composite in class II carious lesion: a randomized control study. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22(1):92-6. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Kavrik F, Yasa B, Botsali MS. Fluoride release/recharging ability and bond strength of glass ionomer cements to sound and caries-affected dentin. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017;20(2):226-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater. 2008;24(1):90-101. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Suzuki T, Finger WJ. Dentin adhesives: site of dentin vs. bonding of composite resins. Dent Mater. 1988;4(6):379-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hegde V, Vaidya MJ, Jadhav KS. Microtensile bond strength of packable and flowable bulk-fill composite resin-based restorative materials to dentin. Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2023;7(1):6-10. [Crossref]
- Harp YS, Montaser MA, Zaghloul NM. Flowable fiber-reinforced versus flowable bulk-fill resin composites: degree of conversion and microtensile bond strength to dentin in high C-factor cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022;34(4):699-706. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites: strength of the bond to dentin versus surface energy parameters. Dent Mater. 2005;21(11):1039-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Determinants of in vitro gap formation of resin composites. J Dent. 2004;32(2):109-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Steiner R, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B, Dumfahrt H, Lente I. Effect of dentin bonding agents, various resin composites and curing modes on bond strength to human dentin. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(20):3395. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Cekic I, Ergun G, Uctasli S, Lassila LV. In vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength of direct ceramic inlays to tooth surface with fiber-reinforced composite at the interface. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97(5):271-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Snauwaert J, Hellemans L, Lambrechts P, et al. Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial-hard tissue interfaces. J Dent Res. 2000;79(2):709-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Techa-Ungkul C, Sakoolnamarka R. The effect of dentin age on the microshear bond strength and microleakage of glass-ionomer cements. Gerodontology. 2021;38(3):259-66. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- El Wakeel AM, Elkassas DW, Yousry MM. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to different tooth substrates; microshear bond strength and scanning electron microscope study. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(2):176-82. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Nicholson JW. Adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to teeth: a review. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 2016;69:33-8. [Crossref]
- Poggio C, Beltrami R, Scribante A, Colombo M, Lombardini M. Effects of dentin surface treatments on shear bond strength of glass-ionomer cements. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2014;5(1):15-22. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Hesse D, Bonifácio CC, Guglielmi Cde A, Bönecker M, van Amerongen WE, Raggio DP. Bilayer technique and nano-filled coating increase success of approximal ART restorations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016;26(3):231-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Shear bond strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med. 2015;11:14. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Bhatia K, Nayak R, Ginjupalli K. Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond strength to dentin of primary teeth-an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022;46(6):25-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- El-Deeb HA, Mobarak EH. Microshear bond strength of high-viscosity glass-ionomer to normal and caries-affected dentin under simulated intrapulpal pressure. Oper Dent. 2018;43(6):665-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Francois P, Vennat E, Le Goff S, Ruscassier N, Attal JP, Dursun E. Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(6):2599-608. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: İşlem Listesi