Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Two Posterior Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth: An in Vitro Study
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Contributors
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Introduction: Dental caries remains to be one of the most common diseases encountered in the field of dentistry. Several restorative materials have been introduced with different properties are most widely used nowadays because of their superior aesthetic and physical properties. Shear bond strength of a restorative material plays a key role in deciding the restoration’s longevity. Hence, for a better selection of the restorative material, shear bond strength needs to be evaluated.
Aim: Study aim was to evaluate and compare shear bond strength of two posterior restorative materials in primary teeth.
Material & Methods: Twenty extracted deciduous molars were selected for a study to compare the shear bond strength of two restorative materials. The teeth were mounted in acrylic blocks and a uniform dentinal surface was exposed by sectioning with a diamond disk. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups based on the restorative material used: Group 1, restored with Tetric N-Ceram (a nanohybrid composite) and Group 2, restored with Wizdent WONDER BULKFILL (a bulk-fill composite). The restorative materials were applied to the dentinal surfaces using plastic moulds to ensure uniformity and the specimens were stored in distilled water to simulate oral conditions until testing. Shear bond strength was then measured for all specimens using a universal testing machine, providing data on the adhesive performance of the two materials on deciduous dentin.
Results: The study results indicated that the shear bond strength values for Tetric N-Ceram (19.8460 MPa) and Wizdent WONDER BULKFILL (20.0200 MPa) were comparable. This finding suggests that the bulk-fill composite restorative material demonstrated shear bond strength on par with the nanohybrid composite restorative material when bonded to deciduous dentin.
Conclusion: From this study it can be concluded that bulk-fill composite restorative material has comparable shear bond strength to nanohybrid composite restorative material.
Files
SAURABH.pdf
Files
(794.0 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:386439502795a07afe34e520e4cb7cd3
|
794.0 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Preethy NA, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, Subramanian E. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Esthetic Restorative Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020;13(6):635-39. 2. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, Sibal GK. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Various Glass Ionomer Cements to Dentin of Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):192-96. 3. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, et al. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27:117-23. 4. Colak H, Ercan E, Hamidi MM. Shear bond strength of bulk-fill and nano-restorative materials to dentin. Eur J Dent. 2016;10(1):40-45. 5. Pradeep K, Ginjupalli K, Kuttappa MA, Kudva A, Butula R. In vitro Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bulk-fill Composites and Nanohybrid Composite. World J Dent 2016;7(3):119-22. 6. Salernitano E., Migliaresi C. Composite Materials for Biomedical Applications: A Review. J. Appl. Biomater. Biomech. 2003;1:3-18. 7. Battistella E, Varoni E, Cochis A, Palazzo B, Rimondini L. Degradable Polymers May Improve Dental Practice. J. Appl. Biomater. Biomech. 2011;9:223–31. 8. Gorkem U, Guzel K., Sonmez I. Assessment of monomer release from 3 different fissure sealants. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2018;16:90–96. 9. Yao S, Qin L, Ma L, Zhang X, Jiang H, Zhang J, Zhou C, Wu J. Novel antimicrobial and self-healing dental resin to combat secondary caries and restoration fracture. Dent. Mater. 2023;11:1040–50. 10. Yadav R, Meena A, Lee HH, Lee SY, Park SJ. Tribological behavior of dental resin composites: A comprehensive review. Tribol. Intern. 2023;190:109017. 11. Korkut E, Torlak E, Altunsoy M. Antimicrobial and Mechanical Properties of Dental Resin Composite Containing Bioactive Glass. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2016;14:296–301. 12. Pastrav M, Pastrav O, Chisnoiu AM, Chisnoiu RM, Cuc S, Petean I, et al. Properties of Nanohybrid Dental Composites-A Comparative In Vitro Study. Biomedicines. 2024;12(1):243. 13. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-Fill Composites: A Review of the Current Literature. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(2):95-109. 14. Titley KC, Chernecky R, Rossouw PE, et al. The effect of various storage methods and media on shear- bond strengths of dental composite resin to bovine dentine. Arch Oral Biol. 1998;43(4):305-11. 15. Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Composite-composite repair bond strength: Effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent. 2003;31(8):521-25. 16. Nujella BPS, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(1):22-26. 17. Fleming GJ, Awan M, Cooper PR, Sloan AJ. The potential of a resin-composite to be cured to a 4mm depth. Dent Mater. 2008;24:522–9. 18. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TR 11405 Dental Materials-guidance on Testing of Adhesion to Tooth Structure. Geneva, Switzerland:: WHO;1994..pp.pp. 1-13. 19. Manuja N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian SocPedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(1):7-13. 20. Jain G, Narad A, Boruah LC, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three resin based dual-cure core build-up materials: an in-vitro study. J Conserv Dent JCD. 2015;18(4):337-41. 21. Jafarpour D, Ferooz R, Ferooz M, Bagheri R. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill, Conventional, and Flowable Resin Composites Stored Dry and Wet. Int J Dent. 2022;10:7946239. 22. Ferooz M, Bagheri R, Jafarpour D, Burrow MF. Physical Properties of Nanohybrid and Microhybrid Resin Composites Subjected to an Acidic Environment: A Laboratory Study. Oper Dent.45(3):105-13. 23. Sunbul H. A., Silikas N., Watts D. C. Surface and bulk properties of dental resin-composites after solvent storage. Dental Materials. 2016;32(8):987-97. 24. Sarrett D. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dental Materials. 2005;21(1):9-20. 25. Saati K, Khansari S, Mahdisiar F, Valizadeh S. Evaluation of Microhardness of Two Bulk-fill Composite Resins Compared to a Conventional Composite Resin on surface and in Different Depths. J Dent (Shiraz). 2022;23(1):58-64.