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

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 Bioden...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of conservative dentistry 2017-09, Vol.20 (5), p.292-296
Hauptverfasser: Tulumbaci, Fatih, Almaz, Merve Erkmen, Arikan, Volkan, Mutluay, Merve Safa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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. 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. Ninety acrylic cylindrical blocks were prepared and divided into two groups ( = 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. There was no statistically significant difference between MTA + Composite resin with MTA + Compomer; and MTA + RMGIC with Biodentine + RMGIC ( > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between other groups ( < 0.05). 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.
ISSN:0972-0707
0974-5203
DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_97_17