635 µTBS of New Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cements: Effect of Dentin Pretreatment

Friday, March 23, 2012: 8 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
Presentation Type: Oral Session
Y.F. ALFAWAZ, Operative Dentistry, King Saud University Dental School, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, N.B. COOK, Restorative Dentistry, University of Indiana - Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, and M.C. BOTTINO, School of Dentistry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
Objective: to investigate whether the use of novel non-rinse conditioners (i.e., Ketac Nano Primer-3M ESPE and GC Self-Conditioner-GC America) as substrate pre-treatment and new paste/paste resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) (KetacNano 3M ESPE and Fuji Filling™ LC GC America) would affect microtensile dentin bond strength (µTBS) of the material compared to traditional RMGIC with polyacrylic acid as a surface substrate pre-treatment.

Method: Extracted non-restored human molars were sectioned to expose occlusal dentin. Dentin surface was finished to standardize the smear layer. Eight experimental groups were tested: G1-KetacNanoPrimer+KetacNano, G2-KetacConditioner+KetacNano, G3-KetacNanoPrimer+Photac Fil, G4-KetacConditioner+Photac Fil, G5-GCSelfConditioner+Fuji FillingLC, G6-GCCavityConditioner+FujiFillingLC, G7-GC Self Conditioner+FujiIILC and G8-GCCavityConditioner+FujiIILC. Specimens were stored at 37°C for 24h in 100% humidity before cutting non-trimmed beams (0.8×0.8mm2) for µTBS testing. Nine beams from each tooth were tested in a universal testing machine (1mm/min). Debonded specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope to evaluate failure mode. Weibull-distribution survival analysis was used to compare the differences in microtensile peak stress among the groups.

Result: Microtensile data is provided below (G6-pre-test failure). G5 demonstrated a cohesive failure mode, while failure for other groups was predominantly adhesive.

Groups

Teeth(N)

N Beams

Min

Max

Mean(SE)

Weibull Characteristic Strength

Weibull Modulus

1

10

84

0.2

33.8

9.5(1.0)

16.4

1.9

2

10

89

2.0

26.0

11.0(1.0)

19.3

2.3

3

12

106

1.4

42.1

20.0(1.0)

34.7

3.1

4

11

107

4.9

34.9

16.8(0.9)

29.3

3.0

5

12

98

1.7

28.7

15.1(1.0)

26.3

3.1

7

12

107

2.1

44.7

20.0(1.0)

34.7

3.5

8

12

99

0.8

36.0

14.1(0.9)

24.4

2.6

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the use of the novel non-rinse conditioners did not improve the µTBS of new RMGIC to dentin. By contrast, the novel non-rinse conditioners enhanced µTBS of traditional RMGIC.

 Study partially supported by GC America.           


Keywords: Adhesion, Dental materials, Dentin, Glass ionomers and Stress