IADR Abstract Archives
Shear bond strength of resin adhesive and glass ionomer cement to primary dentin: comparing two careis removal methods
Objectives: To evaluate the shear bond strength of a resin adhesive and a resin modified glass ionomer cements to caries-affected primary tooth dentin that has been excavated using minimally invasive system and slow-speed hand piece
Methods: Ten extracted healthy primary teeth were used for the control group (Group 1). Sixty extracted caries affected teeth were used for the carious groups; they were divided into two groups based on the caries removal technique: mechanical technique (Group 2) and chemomechanical technique (Group 3). Half of the specimens in each group were bonded with Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) and the other half bonded with Riva Bond LC (SDI). All bonded specimens were restored with resin composite by means of PVC tubes and subjected to a shear bond strength test. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test (a=0.05)
Results: The results of two-way ANOVA did not show a statistically significant association between caries excavation methods and adhesive type (P = 0.89). For each bonding system, there were statistically significant differences between the caries removal methods (P < 0.001). For each excavation method, there was a significant difference between the two bonding systems used (P < 0.001). The result of the post hoc test showed a significantly higher shear bond strength for Carisolv followed by bur removal compared to the control group (P < 0.001). For Clearfil SE Bond, the difference between Carisolv and hand piece was not significant (P= 0.15); however, for Riva Bond LC there were significant differences between all groups with the highest value for Carisolv and the lowest for sound dentin (control).
Conclusions: The lowest shear bond strengths for both adhesives were observed on caries-free dentin. Although Riva Bond LC appears to be a comparable material with Clearfil SE Bond in terms of bond strength after using Carisolv, its bond strength after using steel slow-speed burs was lower than that of Clearfil SE Bond.
Methods: Ten extracted healthy primary teeth were used for the control group (Group 1). Sixty extracted caries affected teeth were used for the carious groups; they were divided into two groups based on the caries removal technique: mechanical technique (Group 2) and chemomechanical technique (Group 3). Half of the specimens in each group were bonded with Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) and the other half bonded with Riva Bond LC (SDI). All bonded specimens were restored with resin composite by means of PVC tubes and subjected to a shear bond strength test. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test (a=0.05)
Results: The results of two-way ANOVA did not show a statistically significant association between caries excavation methods and adhesive type (P = 0.89). For each bonding system, there were statistically significant differences between the caries removal methods (P < 0.001). For each excavation method, there was a significant difference between the two bonding systems used (P < 0.001). The result of the post hoc test showed a significantly higher shear bond strength for Carisolv followed by bur removal compared to the control group (P < 0.001). For Clearfil SE Bond, the difference between Carisolv and hand piece was not significant (P= 0.15); however, for Riva Bond LC there were significant differences between all groups with the highest value for Carisolv and the lowest for sound dentin (control).
Conclusions: The lowest shear bond strengths for both adhesives were observed on caries-free dentin. Although Riva Bond LC appears to be a comparable material with Clearfil SE Bond in terms of bond strength after using Carisolv, its bond strength after using steel slow-speed burs was lower than that of Clearfil SE Bond.