What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?

Daphne Camara Barcellos,Nicolas Petrucelli,César Rogério Pucci,Bianca Mitsue Goulart Sobue,Sérgio Eduardo De Paiva Gonçalves,Milena Traversa Palazon

doi:10.14295/bds.2015.v18i2.1077

Daphne Camara Barcellos, Nicolas Petrucelli + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2015.v18i2.1077

Copy DOI

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to composite resin considering the use of conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 60 RMGIC blocks (Riva, SDI) measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm. were constructed. On the blocks, the application of different protocols of adhesive systems (n = 10) was carried out: Group 1 (Control) - without application of adhesive agent; Group 2 - 37% phosphoric acid + conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 3 - conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 4 – conventional adhesive agent Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose; Group 5 - self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond; Group 6: self-etching adhesive Optibond Allin-One. Next, resin composite blocks measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm were constructed (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer). The specimens were cut to obtain sticks which were submitted to microtensile bond strength test in a universal testing machine. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (5%). Results: ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.05, which indicated significant differences between the groups (in Mpa): Group 2 - 32.83; Group 5 - 31.2; Group 3 - 25,15b; Group 6 - 22.92; Group 4 - 22.15; Group 1 - 13.84. The analysis of fracture mode demonstrated that there was a predominance of adhesive and mixed fractures for all groups. Conclusion: The protocols of acid etching + conventional adhesive system Single Bond 2 (Group 2) or self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (Group 5) increased the bond strength of RMGIC to the composite resin. The presence of an adhesive layer between the two materials tended to improve the bonding of RMGIC to composite resin.

Highlights

I n restorative dentistry, glass ionomer cement (GIC) can be used, among many situations, as liner material to protect pulpdentin complex in deep cavities by playing the role of artificial dentinal [1,2,3]
Group 1 presented significantly lower bond strength compared to the Group 2 and Group 5
The use of the acid etching on resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) followed by the application of Adper Single Bond 2 (Group 2) showed higher bond strength values when compared to the Group 1 (Control) that did not use adhesive agent to bond the RMGIC to the composite resin

Summary

Introduction

I n restorative dentistry, glass ionomer cement (GIC) can be used, among many situations, as liner material to protect pulpdentin complex in deep cavities by playing the role of artificial dentinal [1,2,3] Such material is often associated with composite resin, which provides some advantages such as: decrease in the total volume of composite by absorbing the stress generated by polymerization contraction, responsible for possible breakages of adhesive bonds [4,5,6,7]; reduce the marginal leakage due to chemical bond to dentin and the increase of the restoration flexibility by absorbing the stresses developed during and after curing of composite resin [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Some studies suggest doubts about the effectiveness of the acid etching on the material [12,13,14], while the others consider that the acid etching protocol is effective to bond the two materials [15,16,17,18]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion