Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin composite (RC) and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to four different bioceramic materials and to compare the effects of the immediate vs. delayed placement of restoration on the SBS. A total of 160 Teflon bl...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Materials |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/13/4668 |
| _version_ | 1797442777516081152 |
|---|---|
| author | Abeer S. Alqahtani Ayman M. Sulimany Abdullah S. Alayad Abdulaziz S. Alqahtani Omar A. Bawazir |
| author_facet | Abeer S. Alqahtani Ayman M. Sulimany Abdullah S. Alayad Abdulaziz S. Alqahtani Omar A. Bawazir |
| author_sort | Abeer S. Alqahtani |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The objectives of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin composite (RC) and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to four different bioceramic materials and to compare the effects of the immediate vs. delayed placement of restoration on the SBS. A total of 160 Teflon blocks and 40 blocks/material, were randomly filled with one of the bioceramic materials (NeoPUTTY<sup>®</sup>, NeoMTA2<sup>®</sup>, TotalFill<sup>®</sup> BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty, and ProRoot<sup>®</sup> MTA). The restoration was performed immediately or in a delayed time frame (after 7 days) using a Filtek™ Z350 XT Flowable composite (bonded to the bioceramic materials using Single bond universal 3M) or GC Fuji II LC<sup>®</sup> RMGI. The SBS test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the failure mode was evaluated under a digital microscope by one blinded examiner. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Games–Howell post hoc test was used to compare the mean SBS between the groups. The mean SBS of the bioceramic materials to RC was significantly higher than to RMGI except for ProRoot MTA (<i>p</i>-value 0.65). The SBS values to RC were as follows: ProRoot MTA (7.64 MPa); NeoMTA2 (8.57 MPa) which was significantly higher than both NeoPUTTY (4.04 MPa) and TotalFill<sup>®</sup> BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty (4.38 MPa). For RMGI groups, ProRoot MTA showed the highest SBS (7.18 MPa), followed by NeoMTA2 (4.15 MPa), NeoPUTTY (1.62 MPa), and TotalFill<sup>®</sup> BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty (1.54 MPa). The delayed timing restoration showed a significantly higher SBS than the immediate, except for the immediate RMGI restoration with MTA. To conclude, the SBS of RC to the bioceramic materials was significantly higher than RMGI, except for ProRoot MTA. Both restorative materials had a significantly higher SBS to the MTA groups in comparison to premixed bioceramics. Delayed RC restoration had a higher SBS than immediate restoration. Similarly, delayed RMGI restoration had a higher SBS than immediate restoration with premixed bioceramic but not with MTA. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T12:48:05Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-805fdb24dcc94e519482d0e0590c6fa3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1944 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T12:48:05Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Materials |
| spelling | doaj.art-805fdb24dcc94e519482d0e0590c6fa32023-11-30T22:10:35ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442022-07-011513466810.3390/ma15134668Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and TimingsAbeer S. Alqahtani0Ayman M. Sulimany1Abdullah S. Alayad2Abdulaziz S. Alqahtani3Omar A. Bawazir4Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaThe objectives of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin composite (RC) and a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to four different bioceramic materials and to compare the effects of the immediate vs. delayed placement of restoration on the SBS. A total of 160 Teflon blocks and 40 blocks/material, were randomly filled with one of the bioceramic materials (NeoPUTTY<sup>®</sup>, NeoMTA2<sup>®</sup>, TotalFill<sup>®</sup> BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty, and ProRoot<sup>®</sup> MTA). The restoration was performed immediately or in a delayed time frame (after 7 days) using a Filtek™ Z350 XT Flowable composite (bonded to the bioceramic materials using Single bond universal 3M) or GC Fuji II LC<sup>®</sup> RMGI. The SBS test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the failure mode was evaluated under a digital microscope by one blinded examiner. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Games–Howell post hoc test was used to compare the mean SBS between the groups. The mean SBS of the bioceramic materials to RC was significantly higher than to RMGI except for ProRoot MTA (<i>p</i>-value 0.65). The SBS values to RC were as follows: ProRoot MTA (7.64 MPa); NeoMTA2 (8.57 MPa) which was significantly higher than both NeoPUTTY (4.04 MPa) and TotalFill<sup>®</sup> BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty (4.38 MPa). For RMGI groups, ProRoot MTA showed the highest SBS (7.18 MPa), followed by NeoMTA2 (4.15 MPa), NeoPUTTY (1.62 MPa), and TotalFill<sup>®</sup> BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty (1.54 MPa). The delayed timing restoration showed a significantly higher SBS than the immediate, except for the immediate RMGI restoration with MTA. To conclude, the SBS of RC to the bioceramic materials was significantly higher than RMGI, except for ProRoot MTA. Both restorative materials had a significantly higher SBS to the MTA groups in comparison to premixed bioceramics. Delayed RC restoration had a higher SBS than immediate restoration. Similarly, delayed RMGI restoration had a higher SBS than immediate restoration with premixed bioceramic but not with MTA.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/13/4668bioceramicmineral trioxide aggregateNeoPUTTYNeoMTA2premixed bioceramicsresin composite |
| spellingShingle | Abeer S. Alqahtani Ayman M. Sulimany Abdullah S. Alayad Abdulaziz S. Alqahtani Omar A. Bawazir Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings Materials bioceramic mineral trioxide aggregate NeoPUTTY NeoMTA2 premixed bioceramics resin composite |
| title | Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings |
| title_full | Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings |
| title_short | Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Four Bioceramic Materials with Different Restorative Materials and Timings |
| title_sort | evaluation of the shear bond strength of four bioceramic materials with different restorative materials and timings |
| topic | bioceramic mineral trioxide aggregate NeoPUTTY NeoMTA2 premixed bioceramics resin composite |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/13/4668 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abeersalqahtani evaluationoftheshearbondstrengthoffourbioceramicmaterialswithdifferentrestorativematerialsandtimings AT aymanmsulimany evaluationoftheshearbondstrengthoffourbioceramicmaterialswithdifferentrestorativematerialsandtimings AT abdullahsalayad evaluationoftheshearbondstrengthoffourbioceramicmaterialswithdifferentrestorativematerialsandtimings AT abdulazizsalqahtani evaluationoftheshearbondstrengthoffourbioceramicmaterialswithdifferentrestorativematerialsandtimings AT omarabawazir evaluationoftheshearbondstrengthoffourbioceramicmaterialswithdifferentrestorativematerialsandtimings |