World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  16 (2025)
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2025 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength between Pullulan-enhanced Bonding Agent and Conventional Bonding Agent: An In Vitro Study

Andlin Sahaya Sowmiya F, Sangeeta Chavan, Palanivel Pandian R, Premkumar P, Subhashini M, Ramalakshmi G

Keywords : Adhesive, Bonding agent, Dental composite, Phosphorylated pullulan, Shear bond strength

Citation Information : F AS, Chavan S, R PP, P P, M S, G R. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength between Pullulan-enhanced Bonding Agent and Conventional Bonding Agent: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2025; 16 (1):69-73.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2568

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-03-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2025; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of pullulan (PL)-enhanced bonding agent and conventional bonding agent. Materials and methods: A total of 45 intact human premolar teeth specimens were divided randomly into three groups, with 15 teeth specimens per group. These specimens were prepared and subjected to etching using 37% phosphoric acid. The group A specimens received conventional 5th-generation bonding agent (3M ESPE single bond), group B was treated with phosphorylated pullulan (PPL), and group C received PPL-enhanced 5th-generation bonding agent. Composite resin was then applied to all specimens, which were subsequently immersed in distilled water for 24 hours, followed by shear bond testing. ANOVA, followed by Tukey's post hoc test, was used to analyze the test results. Results: The shear force required to debond the PPL-enhanced commercially available 5th-generation bonding agent applied restoration [26.78 megapascals (MPa)] was significantly higher compared to commercially available 5th-generation bonding agent (24.39 MPa) and PPL solution (21.36 MPa) as bonding agent. Conclusion: The dentin bonding agent enhanced with PL biopolymer exhibited higher bond strength at the tooth-restoration interface compared to the conventional bonding agent. Clinical significance: Composite restorative failures are common nowadays. Improving the bonding agent constituent can provide better bonding, thereby preventing composite failures and enhancing durability, which in turn leads to longer-lasting restorations and decreased need for frequent replacements in clinical practice.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Mirsasaani SS, Hemati M, Tavasoli T, et al. Nanotechnology and nanobiomaterials in dentistry. In: Subramani K, Ahmed W, Hartsfield JK (Eds.), Nanobiomaterials in Clinical Dentistry, 1st ed. Chapter 2. USA: Elsevier; 2013. pp. 17–33.
  2. Fernandes NA, Vally Zi, Sykes LM. The longevity of restorations—a literature review. S Afr Dent J 2015;70(9):410–413.
  3. Xu HHK, Cheng L, Zhang K, et al. Nanostructured dental composites and adhesives with antibacterial and remineralizing capabilities for caries inhibition. In: Subramani K, Ahmed W, Hartsfield JK (Eds.) Nanobiomaterials in Clinical Dentistry, 1st ed, Chapter 6. USA: Elsevier; 2013. pp. 109–129.
  4. Hardan L, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, et al. The bond strength and antibacterial activity of the universal dentin bonding system: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microorganisms 2021;9(6):1230. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9061230
  5. Freedman G. Direct veneers. In: Contemporary Esthetic Dentistry, 1st ed, Chapter 15. Elsevier; 2012. pp. 405–435.
  6. Coltelli MB, Danti S, De Clerck K, et al. Pullulan for advanced sustainable body- and skin-contact applications. J Funct Biomater 2020;11(1):20. DOI: 10.3390/jfb11010020
  7. Takahata T, Okihara T, Yoshida Y, et al. Bone engineering by phosphorylated-pullulan and β-TCP composite. Biomed Mater 2015;10(6):065009. DOI: 10.1088/1748-6041/10/6/065009
  8. Morimoto Y, Hasegawa T, Hongo H, et al. Phosphorylated pullulan promotes calcification during bone regeneration in the bone defects of rat tibiae. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2023;11:1243951. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1243951
  9. Nair M, Paul J, Kumar S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: an in-vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(1):27–30. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.124119
  10. Ganesh AS. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength between fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth generation bonding agents: an in vivo study. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31(5):752–757. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_635_19
  11. Adyanthaya BR, Gazal S, Mathur M, et al. To compare and evaluate the shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(5):525–528. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2422
  12. Yoshida Y, Okihara T, Nakamura M, et al. Phosphorylated pullulan bioadhesive for regeneration and reconstruction of bone and tooth. Key Eng Mater 2012;529–530:516–521. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.529-530.516
  13. Tjäderhane L. Dentin bonding: can we make it last? Oper Dent 2015;40(1):4–18. DOI: 10.2341/14-095-BL
  14. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007;28(26):3757–3785. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044
  15. Hilton TJ, Breschi L, Cadenaro M, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin. In: Hilton T, Ferracane J, Broome J, editors. Summitt's Fundamental of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 4th ed. Chapter 9. Hanover Park, IL: Quintessence Books; 2013. pp. 207–248.
  16. Bouillaguet S, Gysi P, Wataha JC, et al. Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventional, one-step, and self-etching adhesive systems. J Dent 2001;29(1):55–61. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00049-x
  17. Chuang SF, Chang LT, Chang CH, et al. Influence of enamel wetness on composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents: part II-effects on shear bond strength. J Dent 2006;34(5):352–361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.001
  18. Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Clelland N, et al. Microtensile bond strengths of one-step and self-etching adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2005;30(2):195–200.
  19. Hegde MN, Bhandary S. An evaluation and comparison of shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin, using newer dentin bonding agents. J Conserv Dent 2008;11(2):71–75. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.44054
  20. Pedano MS, Li X, Camargo B, et al. Injectable phosphopullulan-functionalized calcium-silicate cement for pulp-tissue engineering: an in-vivo and ex-vivo study. Dent Mater 2020;36(4):512–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.01.011
  21. Toida Y, Kawano S, Islam R, et al. Pulpal response to mineral trioxide aggregate containing phosphorylated pullulan-based capping material. Dent Mater J 2022;41(1):126–133. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2021-153
  22. Kamoun EA, El-Betany A, Menzel H, et al. Influence of photoinitiator concentration and irradiation time on the crosslinking performance of visible-light activated pullulan-HEMA hydrogels. Int J Biol Macromol 2018;120(Pt B):1884–1892. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac. 2018.10.011
  23. Singh RS, Kaur N, Kennedy JF. Pullulan and pullulan derivatives as promising biomolecules for drug and gene targeting. Carbohydr Polym 2015;123:190–207. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.01.032
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.