Abstract
Background/purposeGlass-ionomer cement (GIC) is bioactive and independent. Bioactivity, which is a big trend in restorative dentistry. When they actively stimulate with microbiological species besides their primary function of restoring tooth structure then restorative materials should called “bioactive” materials. The purpose of this study was to determine the bond stability and the change in interfacial ultra-structure of a conventional glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin, with and without pre-treatment using a polyalkenoic acid conditioner. Material and methodsThe occlusal dentin surfaces of six teeth were ground flat. Glass-ionomer cement was bonded to the surfaces either with or without polyalkenoic acid conditioning. The teeth were sectioned into 1-mm2 stick-shaped specimens. The specimens obtained were randomly assigned to two groups with different periods of storage in water: 1-week and 3-year. The micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) was determined for each storage time. Additional specimens were prepared for interfacial analysis by using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM); they were produced with or without prior polyalkenoic acid conditioning in the same way as in the μTBS test. ResultsThere was no significant difference in μTBS to conditioned dentin and non-conditioned dentin (p > 0.05). The failures appeared to be of a mixed nature, although aging caused more areas of cohesive than adhesive failure in both groups. ConclusionAging did not reduce the bond strength of the conventional glass-ionomer cement to dentin with or without the use of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner. Remineralized dentin layer were observed in both conditioned and unconditioned 3-years specimens.
Highlights
With the help of numerous research and clinical evidence, we are able to accomplish tooth adhesion to enamel and dentin to a satisfactory level by means of dental restorative materials such as resin-based composites and glass-ionomer cement (GIC)
As cohesive failure within the GIC tends to occur over time, this may be the reason why there was no significant difference in μTBS
From the TEM photomicrographs of un-conditioned specimens (Figures 3 a&b), we can observe the GIC area and dentin area without any intervening differentiation or layers; there was no significant difference in μTBS compared with the polyalkenoic acid conditioned group
Summary
With the help of numerous research and clinical evidence, we are able to accomplish tooth adhesion to enamel and dentin to a satisfactory level by means of dental restorative materials such as resin-based composites and glass-ionomer cement (GIC). The concept of biocompatibility has evolved to bioactivity, which is a big trend in restorative dentistry[1].Dental restorative materials should be called “bioactive” only when they actively stimulate or direct tissue responses, and they can control interactions with microbiological species besides their primary function of restoring or replacing missing tooth structure [2].In this sense, bioactivity has two major aspects, which are remineralization and anti-microbial properties. GIC is one example of a dental bioactive material. It has both remineralization and antimicrobial ability [10,11,12,13] and has been used for dental restoration and the Atraumatic
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
