World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of Bond Strength Following Simultaneous Activation of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and Self-etch Adhesive in Primary Molars: In Vitro Study

Heer Kadhi, Jasmin Winnier, Ishani Ratnaparkhi

Keywords : Bond strength, Resin-modified glass ionomer, Selective enamel etching, Simultaneous activation technique

Citation Information : Kadhi H, Winnier J, Ratnaparkhi I. Assessment of Bond Strength Following Simultaneous Activation of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and Self-etch Adhesive in Primary Molars: In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2022; 13 (5):479-482.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2080

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-07-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the bond strength following simultaneous activation of resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) base and self-etch adhesive in sandwich restoration compared to conventional sandwich restoration in primary molars. Materials and methods: Thirty non-carious primary molars were embedded in acrylic up to the cementoenamel junction. The coronal portion of the teeth were removed using a diamond disk to obtain flat dentin surfaces for standardization and allocated randomly to three different groups: group I—simultaneous activation of RMGI and self-etch adhesive (SAT); group II—simultaneous activation of RMGI and self-etch adhesive with enamel etching (SAT+EE); and group III—conventional sandwich technique (ST). All groups were then restored with bulk fill composite. The samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at room temperature and evaluated for shear bond strength under universal testing machine until failure. Results: The mean shear bond strength of group I was 1.40, group II was 3.10, and group III was 1.71. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test results revealed statistically significant difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). Tukey's post-hoc analysis revealed a highly statistically significant difference between group I and group II (p < 0.0001). The difference between group II and group III was also significant (p < 0.001). Mean time taken was least for SAT group (70 seconds) followed by SAT+EE group (85 seconds) and the maximum time taken was for ST group (100 seconds). One-way ANOVA test suggested a statistically significant difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). Post-hoc analysis showed a statistically significant difference between group I and group II (p < 0.001) and group I and group III (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Simultaneous activation technique with selective EE resulted in a greater bond strength as compared to that of without etching or the conventional technique. Clinical significance: This technique may provide better retention and longevity of the restoration. It involves less number of steps and is a time-saving procedure which can be beneficial for pediatric patients.

PDF Share
  1. Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007; 8(1):14–21. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262565
  2. Pereira LC, Nunes MC, Dibb RG, et al. Mechanical properties and bond strength of glass-ionomer cements. J Adhes Dent 2002;4(1):73–80.
  3. Berzins DW, Abey S, Costache MC, et al. Resin-modified glass-ionomer setting reaction competition. J Dent Res 2010;89(1):82–86. DOI: 10.1177/0022034509355919
  4. Subrata G, Davidson CL. The effect of various surface treatments on the shear strength between composite resin and glass-ionomer cement. J Dent 1989;17:28–32. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(89)90004-3
  5. Atash R, Vanden Abbeele A. Sealing ability of new generation adhesive systems in primary teeth: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(4):322–328.
  6. Pragasam AX, Duraisamy V, Nayak UA, et al. Evaluation of sealing ability two self-etching adhesive systems and a glass ionomer lining LC under composite restoration in primary tooth: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7(2):518–523. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.163525
  7. Boruziniat A, Gharaei S. Bond strength between composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer using different adhesive systems and curing techniques. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):150–154. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128055
  8. Pinheiro SL, Oda M, Matson E, et al. Simultaneous activation technique: an alternative for bonding composite resin to glass ionomer. Pediatr Dent 2003;25(3):270–274.
  9. Shamrani ASA. An in vitro assessment of micro-shear bond strength of a nano adhesive to dentin with different types of composite restorative systems. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2016;5(2): 240–244. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.2016.05.00148
  10. Yaseen S, Subba Reddy V. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching adhesives (sixth and seventh generation) on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2009;27(1):33. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.50814
  11. Ziskind D, Adell I, Teperovich E, et al. The effect of an intermediate layer of flowable composite resin on microleakage in packable composite restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15(5):349–354. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00663.x
  12. Fahmy AE, Farrag NM. Microleakage and shear punch bond strength in class II primary molars cavities restored with low shrink silorane based versus methacrylate based composite using three different techniques. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35(2):173–181. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.2.u6142007hj421041
  13. Srinu G, Dayalan M, Nagabhairava RK, et al. A study to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of different core materials - an in vitro study. Int J Health Sci Res 2020;10(11):112–122.
  14. Soares FZ, Rocha Rde O, Raggio DP, et al. Microtensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to primary and permanent dentin. Pediatr Dent 2005 27(6):457–462.
  15. Zareen SA, Usman JAM, Haribabu R. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three different luting cements toward ceramic and dentin for all ceramic restorations: an in vitro study. J Orofac Res 2013; 3(2):86–89. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10026-1072
  16. Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy BN, et al. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:9–15. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.62633
  17. Hübel S, Mejàre I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13(1):2–8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.2003.00416.x
  18. Bona AD, Pinzetta C, Rosa V. Microleakage of acid etched glass ionomer sandwich restorations. J Minim Interv Dent 2009;2(1):36–44. DOI: 10.1590/s1678 77572007000300014
  19. Mitra SB. Adhesion to dentin and physical properties of a light-cured glass-ionomer liner/base. J Dent Res 1991;70(1):72–74. DOI: 10.1177/00220345910700011201
  20. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):192–196. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1362
  21. Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres AP, et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 2015;26(1):3–10. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302442
  22. Kim Y, Kim S, Jeong T, et al. Effects of additional acid etching on the dentin bond strengths of one-step self-etch adhesives applied to primary teeth. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29(2):110–117. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12273
  23. Donmez SB, Turgut MD, Uysal S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of composite restorations in primary teeth: effect of adhesive system after three years. Biomed Res Int 2016:54–59. DOI: 10.1155/2016/5409392
  24. Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent 2015; 40(2):190–200. DOI: 10.2341/13-324-L
  25. Hiraishi N, Breschi L, Prati C, et al. Technique sensitivity associated with air drying of HEMA-free, single bottle, one step self etch adhesive. Dent Mater 2007;23:498–505. DOI: 10.1016/ Epub 2006 May 9.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.