Microshear Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Materials to Dentin

Ola M. Sakr^{1, 2,}

¹Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

²Department of Operative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Misr University for Science and Technology, Egypt

Cite this paper:
Ola M. Sakr. Microshear Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Materials to Dentin. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018; 6(4):90-94. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-4-3

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the microshear bond strength of bioactive restorative (BAR) materials to human dentin surface and estimate the clinical durability and serviceability of tested restorative materials Materials and Methods: Eighty dentin samples obtained from caries free human premolars and randomly divided into four groups (n = 20) according to application tested restorative materials First group (A) specimens tested direct application of bioactive restoratives BAR material to dentin without etching step. Second group (B) specimens tested for direct application of BAR material to dentin with etching step. Third group (C) specimens tested for direct application of bioactive base (BAB) material to dentin. The fourth group (D) specimens tested for direct application of nanofilled restorative (NFR) material to dentin with etching step, before application of tested restorative materials, a hollow cylinder (2.0 mm height/0.75mm internal diameter) was placed on the treated dentin surfaces. Tested restorative material inserted into the tube and cured. After artificial saliva storage for 5 days, the tube removed and microshear bond strength was determined in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) values. Regression model using two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) used in testing significance to evaluate the microshear bond strength of tested restorative materials. Results: It was found that group (B) BAR material bonded to etched dentin recorded the highest microshear bond strength mean value (12.18±1.39 MPa) followed by group (D) NFR material mean value (12.06±1.89 MPa) then group, (C) BAB materials mean value (9.96±1.27 MPa) while group (A) BAR material to unetched dentin recorded the lowest microshear bond strength mean value (9.88±2.11 MPa). The difference between all groups was statistically significant as indicated by one-way ANOVA (P=0.003>0.05). Tukey’s post-hoc showed non-significant (P>0.05) difference between (groups A and C) or (groups B and D). Conclusions: Saliva is a necessary component as calcium and phosphate supplement for proper bond strength of BAR to etched dentin. BAR and NFR have a good and clinically accepted micreoshear bond strength. BAB difficult to be used in open sandwich techniques. NFR proper adhesive selection lead to proper collagen encapsulation with qualified bonded interface.

Keywords:
Bioactive Restoratives (BAR) Bioactive Base (BAB) Bioactive Glass Particles (BAG) Nano Filled Restoratives (NFR) Dentin Microshear Bond Strength

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Antunes LA, Pedro RL, Vieira AS , Maia LC. :Effectiveness of high speed instrument and air abrasion on different dental substrates. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22:235-41.
[2]	Neuhaus KW, Ciucchi P, Donnet M , Lussi A. Removal of enamel caries with an air abrasion powder. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 538-46.
[3]	Black GV: A work in operative dentistry in two volumes. Chicago: Medico-Dental Publishing. 1917.
[4]	Degrange M, Roulet JF: Minimally invasive restorations with bonding. ,Chicago: Quintessence Publishing. 1997.
[5]	Finnema KJ, Ozcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU.: In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 137:615-22. e3.
[6]	De Munck J, Mine A, Poitevin A, Van Ende A, Cardoso MV, Van Landuyt KL, et al.: Meta-analytical review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. J Dent Res 2012; 91: 351-7.
[7]	Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA.: Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of macro test methods. Dent Mater 2010; 26: e38-49.
[8]	Fu Y, Li X, Que K, Wang M, Hu D, Mateo LR, DeVizio W, Zhang YP: Instant dentinal hypersensitivity relief of a new desensitizing dentifrice containing 8.0% arginine, a high cleaning calcium carbonate system and 1450 ppm fluoride: a 3-day clinical study in Chengdu, China. Am Dent J .2010, 23:20A-27A.
[9]	Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL.: The effects of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res 2000 ;79 :812-7.
[10]	Martins CHG, Carvalho TC, Souza MGM, Ravagnani C, Peitl O,Zanotto ED, et al. Assessment of antimicrobial effect of Biosilicate (R) against anaerobic, microaerophilic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 2011; 22:1439-46.
[11]	Yarborough L, Engle J, Wang M, Ferracane JL, Mitchell JC.: Inhibition of bacteria on a bioactive glass-containing, anti-microbial sealant material. In: AADR/CADR annual meeting and exhibition. 2012.
[12]	Mitchell JC, Musanje L, Ferracane JL. Biomimetic dentin desensitizer based on nano-structured bioactive glass. DentMater 2011; 27: 386-93.
[13]	Ornaghi BP, Meier MM, Rosa V, Cesar PF, Lohbauer U, Braga RR.. Subcritical crack growth and in vitro lifetime prediction of resin composites with different filler distributions. Dent Mater 2012; 28:985-95.
[14]	D. Khvostenkoa, J.C. Mitchellb, T.J. Hiltonc, J.L. Ferracanec, J.J. Kruzica. Mechanical performance of novel bioactive glass containing dental restorative composites. dental materials 29. 2013, 1139-1148.
[15]	Elbishari H, Silikas N, Satterthwaite J.: Filler size ofresin-composites, percentage of voids and fracture toughness: is there a correlation? Dent Mater J 2012; 31:523-7.
[16]	Drummond JL, Lin LH, Al-Turki LA, Hurley RK.: Fatigue behavior of dental composite materials. J Dent 2009; 37: 321-30.
[17]	Efflandt SE, Magne P, Douglas LF, Francis LF : Interaction between bioactive glasses and human dentin. J Mater Sci 2002, 13, :557-565.
[18]	Davies, G.C., Bruce, D.M. :A stress analysis model for composite coaxial cylinders ., Journal of Mate Scie ,1997, 32(20), pp. 5425-54.
[19]	Lee J-H, Seo S-J, Kim H-W. Bioactive glass-based nanocomposites for personalized dental tissue regeneration. Dent Mater J 2016; 35:710-20.
[20]	Lorenzo B∗, Tatjana M, Sandra Rc, Allegra C, Milena C, Leo T, David H., Franklin R. and Annalisa M: Dentin bonding systems: From dentin collagen structure to bond preservation and clinical applications. Dent Mater J. 2 0 1 8, 3 4: 78-96.
[21]	Marshall GW Jr, Marshall SJ, Kinney JH, Balooch M. The dentin substrate: structure and properties related to bonding. J Dent. 1997; 25: 441-58.
[22]	Ebisawa, Y., Kokubo, T., Ohura, K., Yamamuro, T.. Bioactivity of CaO•SiO2-based glasses: in vitro evaluation. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 1990,1(4), pp. 233-238.
[23]	Kokubo, T., Kushitani, H., Sakka, S., Kitsugi, T., Yamamuro, T.. Solutions able to reproduce in vivo surface-structure changes in bioactive glass-ceramic A-W. ,Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1990, 24(6), pp. 721-734.
[24]	Engqvist H, Schultz-Walz JE, Loof J, Botton GA, Mayer D, Phaneuf MW, et al. :Chemical and biological integration of a mouldable bioactive ceramic material capable of forming apatite in vivo in teeth. J of Biomaterials. 2004; 25: 2781-7.
[25]	Hench LL. Bioceramics and the origin of life. J Biomed Mater Res. 1989; 23: 685-93.
[26]	Zhong JP, LaTorre GP, Hench LL.. The kinetics of bioactive ceramics part VII: Binding of collagen to hydroxyapatite and bioactive glass. In Bioceramics 7, eds. OH Andersson, A Yli- Urpo, 1994, pp. 61-66.
[27]	Sauro S, Thompson I, Watson TF.: Effects of common dental materials used in preventive or operative dentistry on dentin permeability and remineralization. Oper Dent. 2011; 36: 222-30.
[28]	Sepulveda P, Jones JR, Hench LL.: Bioactive sol-gel foams for tissue repair. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 59:340-8.
[29]	Suge T, Ishikawa K, Kawasaki A, Yoshiyama M, Asaoka K, Ebisu S.: Duration of dentinal tubule occlusion formed by calcium phosphate precipitation method: in vitro evaluation using synthetic saliva. Journal of Dental Research1995; 74: 1709-14.
[30]	Fabianni M, Lidiane C, Francisco C, Mônica Y b, Lorenzo B and Vicentede Paulo A.. Evaluation of resin/dentin bonded interfaces formed by different adhesive strategies and exposed to NaOCl challenge. Int J Adhesion &Adhesives, 2015, 59: 21-26.
[31]	Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E.. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 2008; 24(1):90-101.
[32]	Argolo S, Mathias P, Aguiar T, Lima A, Santos S, Foxton R, etal.: Effect of agitation and storage temperature on water sorption and solubility of adhesive systems. Dent MaterJ 2014; 34:1-6.
[33]	Cadenaro M, AntoniolliF, SauroS, TayFR, DiLenardaR, PratiC, etal. :Degree of conversion and permeability of dental adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113: 525-30.
[34]	CardosoMV, Almeida NevesA, MineA, CoutinhoE, VanLanduyt K, DeMunck J, et al.: Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J, 2011; 56: 31-44.
[35]	Tay FR, Frankenberger R, KrejciI, Bouillaget S, Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, etal.. Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization I. In vivo evidence. J Dent 2004; 32: 611-21.