Abstract
Problem statement: The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of four cariostatic restorative materials to dentin of permanent teeth. Approach: Restorative materials which have used in the study were composite P60 (3M), conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II, GC), light cured glass ionomer (Vitremer, 3M), compomer (F2000, 3M) and flow compoglass (Vivadent). This study was in vito study 4 groups of 10 teeth were used. Buccal surface of teeth was cut by high speed diamond cylinder burs, no 0.9 and dentin was exposed. Dentin surface was polished using “rubber cup and pumice”, at low speed and repaired with one of the restorative materials according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorative materials were placed on dentin using cylinder which had diameter of 3mm and length of 4mm. Determination of shear bond strength was performed using a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. For statistical analysis, kruskal-wallis and ANOVA was used. Results: Ompomer had the lowest mean shear bond strength, 18.94 ± 1.85 and flow compoglass had the highest mean shear bond strength, 30.79 ± 3.02. Shear bond strength of light cured glass ionomer (30.79 ± 3.02) and conventional glass ionomer (22.64 ± 5) were respectively lower than flow compoglass. ANOVA test showed that the difference between shear bond strength of these materials was significantly difference (p<0.05), but these was no significant difference between shear bond strength of flow compoglass and light cured glass ionomer (p>0.05). Also there was significant difference between shear bond strength of these two materials and self cure glass ionomer, compoer (p<0.05). Conclusion: Flow compoglass had the highest shear bond strength and light cured glass ionomer, self cured glass ionomer and compomer, respectively had lower shear bond strength than flow compoglass.
Highlights
Today, increasing the knowledge has lead to higher tendency to tooth colored restorative materials
Dentin surface was cleaned with pumis and investigate and compare the shear bond strengths of 5 rubber cap washed for 15s with water spray and dried for 10s with compressed air
Materials used in the study were composite P60 (3M), conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II, GC), Light cured glass ionomer (Vitremer, 3m), compomer (F2000, 3M) and flow compoglass (Vivadent)
Summary
Today, increasing the knowledge has lead to higher tendency to tooth colored restorative materials. Conventional glass ionomers are low in mechanical properties, but have chemical bond to tooth and release fluoride (Raberson et al, 2006). Hybrid ionomer (resin modified glass ionomer) possess superior mechanical properties than conventional GI This may be, in part, because of incorporating Hema and unsaturated carbon. These RMGIs display longer working time, shorter setting time and higher flexural and cohesive strength (Ruse, 1999) Another cariostatic material is compomer which shows physical properties quite similar to those of composite resin and release fluoride slowly in oral environment (Raberson et al, 2006). Almuammar and schulman done a study to determine and compare the shear bond strength of conventional GI cement, a resin modified GI, a composite resin and three compomer restorative materials. After shear bond strength testing, the specimens were examined by stereomicroscope
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
