IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Carbomer Cement
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of glass carbomer cement (GCP GlassCarbomer, Leiden, Holland), glass ionomer cement (SDI Riva Self Cure, Bayswater, Australia) and compomer (DyractExtra, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany).
Methods: Flat dentinal surfaces were prepared on 60 extracted second deciduous molar teeth and teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=20). Three kinds of restorative materials were applied on prepared dentine surfaces according to the manufacturers’ instructions. All specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C for 24 hours. To test the μTBS, the teeth were cut to obtain approximately 1.0×1.0 mm sticks. Then, the samples were subjected by Universal Testing Machine (Micro Tensile Tester, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL 60193, USA) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min in order to create fracture at the interface of restorative materials and dentin. The rupture force was recorded in MPa. The failure modes were evaluated with a digital stereomicroscope at 20× magnification; and classified as: adhesive, cohesive and mixed. Data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal Wallis test. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0,05.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between microtensile bond strength values of glass carbomer and glass ionomer (p>0,05). However, microtensile bond strength values of compomer was higher than glass carbomer and glass ionomer (p<0,001). No statistically significant difference was found among the glass carbomer cement, glass ionomer cement and compomer restoration materials in terms of adhesive, cohesive and mixed failure modes (p>0,05).
Conclusions: Glass carbomer cement showed low microtensile bond strength to dentin. In order to use of glass carbomer in pediatric dentistry clinics routinely, its other mechanical properties should be tested with further studies.
Methods: Flat dentinal surfaces were prepared on 60 extracted second deciduous molar teeth and teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=20). Three kinds of restorative materials were applied on prepared dentine surfaces according to the manufacturers’ instructions. All specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C for 24 hours. To test the μTBS, the teeth were cut to obtain approximately 1.0×1.0 mm sticks. Then, the samples were subjected by Universal Testing Machine (Micro Tensile Tester, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL 60193, USA) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min in order to create fracture at the interface of restorative materials and dentin. The rupture force was recorded in MPa. The failure modes were evaluated with a digital stereomicroscope at 20× magnification; and classified as: adhesive, cohesive and mixed. Data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal Wallis test. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0,05.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between microtensile bond strength values of glass carbomer and glass ionomer (p>0,05). However, microtensile bond strength values of compomer was higher than glass carbomer and glass ionomer (p<0,001). No statistically significant difference was found among the glass carbomer cement, glass ionomer cement and compomer restoration materials in terms of adhesive, cohesive and mixed failure modes (p>0,05).
Conclusions: Glass carbomer cement showed low microtensile bond strength to dentin. In order to use of glass carbomer in pediatric dentistry clinics routinely, its other mechanical properties should be tested with further studies.