Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of MTA, Biodentine, and Thera Cal-LC to Different Permanent Restorative Materials: An in Vitro Study
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of three calcium silicate-based pulp capping materials—Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA), Biodentine, and Thera Cal-LC—to three different restorative materials: nanocomposite, Amalgomer CR, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC).
Materials and Methods: A total of 45 acrylic blocks were prepared with standardized central cavities (4 mm diameter × 2 mm depth). These were divided into three groups based on the liner material used: MTA, Biodentine, and Thera Cal-LC. Each group was further subdivided based on the restorative material used: nanocomposite, Amalgomer CR, or RMGIC (n = 5 per subgroup). The restorative materials were applied after complete setting of liners. All specimens were stored at 37°C and 100% humidity for 72 hours, followed by shear bond strength testing using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0, applying ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests (p < 0.05).
Results: Thera Cal-LC demonstrated the highest bond strengths across all restorative materials, followed by Biodentine and MTA. The nanocomposite showed significantly higher SBS values compared to RMGIC and Amalgomer CR within all groups. Among the base materials, significant differences were observed particularly in combinations with RMGIC.
Conclusion: Nanocomposite restorations over TheraCal-LC provided the highest SBS, indicating superior compatibility. Amalgomer CR and RMGIC showed lower SBS values with all liners. This suggests TheraCal-LC combined with nanocomposites may offer enhanced performance in clinical scenarios requiring strong adhesion.
Files
ASWANTH.pdf
Files
(788.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:08d218631d5e8a7b61d4b53181ca1ee3
|
788.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Hashem DF, Foxton R, Manoharan A, et al. The physical characteristics of resin composite-calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration. Dent Mater 2014;30(3):343–9. 2. Altunsoy M, Tanrıver M, Ok E, et al. Shear bond strength of a selfadhering flowable composite and a flowable base composite to mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium-enriched mixture cement, and biodentine. J Endod 2015;41(10):1691–5. 3. Oskoee SS, Kimyai S, Bahari M, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of calcium enriched mixture cement and mineral trioxide aggregate to composite resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(6):457–62. 4. Shin JH, Jang JH, Park SH, et al. Effect of mineral trioxide aggregate surface treatments on morphology and bond strength to composite resin. J Endod 2014;40(8):1210–6 5. Hursh KA, Kirkpatrick TC, Cardon JW, et al. Shear bond comparison between 4 bioceramic materials and dual-cure composite resin. J Endod 2019;45(11):1378–83. 6. Mahmoud SH, El-Negoly SA, Zaen El-Din AM, et al. Biodentine versus mineral trioxide aggregate as a direct pulp capping material for human mature permanent teeth - a systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(5):466–73. 7. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(10):1382–90. 8. Deepa G, Shobha T. A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010;20(6):410–8. 9. Ayad NM, Elnogoly SA, Abouelatta OM. An in-vitro study of the physico-mechanical properties of a new esthetic restorative versus dental amalgam. J Dent Res Dent 60 2008;4(3):137–44 10. Sudsangiam S, van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose? J Adhes Dent 1999;1(1):57–67. 11. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, et al. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent 2007;9(Suppl 1):107 116. 12. Neelakantan P, Grotra D, Subbarao CV, et al. The shear bond strength of resin-based composite to white mineral trioxide aggregate. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143(8):e40–e45. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0302 13. Sambathkumar PA, Mathian VM, Princy P, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of biodentine and resin modified glass ionomer cement using two adhesive systems in premolars restored with composites: an in – vitro study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2019;18(4):08–13 14. Altunsoy M, Tanrıver M, Ok E, et al. Shear bond strength of a self adhering flowable composite and a flowable base composite to mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium-enriched mixture cement, and biodentine. J Endod 2015;41(10):1691–1695. 15. Cantekin K, Avci S. Evaluation of shear bond strength of two resin-based composites and glass ionomer cement to pure tricalcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine®). J Appl Oral Sci 2014;22(4):302–306. 16. Meraji N, Camilleri J. Bonding over dentin replacement materials. J Endod 2017;43(8):1343–1349. 17. Bachoo IK, Seymour D, Brunton P. A biocompatible and bioactive replacement for dentine: is this a reality? The properties and uses of a novel calcium-based cement. Br Dent J 2013;214(2). 18. Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schäfer E, et al. Shear bond strength of biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med 2015;11:14. 19. Tulumbaci F, Almaz ME, Arikan V, et al. Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and biodentine. J Conserv Dent JCD. 2017;20(5):292–296.