Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: bonding to enamel and dentin.
OBJECTIVE
This study was designed to investigate the effect of storage in water on bonding efficacy to enamel and dentin of four resin-modified (Dyract, De Trey Dentsply; Fuji II LC, GC Dental Corp.; Photac Fil, ESPE; Vitremer, 3M Dental Products), one conventional glass ionomer filling material (Ketac Fil, ESPE) and a resin composite system (Pekafill/Gluma bonding system, Bayer). The hypothesis was that water storage would lead to an adverse effect on bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cements to enamel and dentin.


METHODS
The shear bond strength of each material was determined after storage periods of 24 h, 1 wk, 1 mon, 3 mon and 6 mon. The data were subjected to one-way ANOVA. Significant differences were determined by multiple comparison testing (significance level 5%). The failure modes of the debonded specimens were analyzed with a dissecting microscope.


RESULTS
Shear bond strengths to enamel for Dyract, Photac Fil and Pekafill were 5.2 +/- 1.3, 9.9 +/- 1.6 and 17.0 +/- 2.3 MPa, irrespective of storage time (p > 0.05). For Ketac Fil, the average shear bond strength between 1 wk and 6 mon was 4.5 +/- 1.7 MPa, the mean value for Fuji II LC between 24 h and 3 mon was 10.3 +/- 3.9 MPa and after 6 mon was 19.8 +/- 4.4 MPa, while Vitremer showed increasing shear bond strengths between 24 h (2.4 +/- 0.8 MPa) and 1,3 and 6 mon (13.8 +/- 4.3 MPa). Shear bond strengths to dentin were not adversely affected by storage throughout the 6 mon for Dyract (13.0 +/- 2.6 MPa), Fuji II LC (12.7 +/- 1.7 MPa) and Pekafill (14.6 +/- 3.1 MPa), when tested by ANOVA (p > 0.05). Ketac Fil showed 4.9 +/- 1.2 MPa between 1 wk and 6 mon and lower shear bond strength after 24 h. The average shear bond strengths up to 1 mon for Vitremer were 5.4 +/- 2.5 MPa (p > 0.05). However, at 3 and 6 mon immersion in water, three specimens had loosened spontaneously. With Photac Fil, no adhesion to dentin was registered. Most samples showed cohesive failure patterns in the restorative materials. Adhesive or mixed failures were registered only for Vitremer on dentin and enamel up to 1 wk and for Dyract on enamel.


CONCLUSIONS
Long-term water storage generally had no adverse effect on bonding efficacy of resin-modified glass ionomer cements to dentin and enamel.
Fritz
U B
UB
Dental School of Cologne University, Germany.
Finger
W J
WJ
Uno
S
S
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000180:Acrylic Resins; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003743:Dental Enamel; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D004356:Drug Storage; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008298:Maleates; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D017640:Silicates; D013997:Time Factors; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C088486:Dyract; C079765:Fuji II LC cement; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008298:Maleates; D008689:Methacrylates; C084019:Pekafill; C081144:Photac-Fil; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D017640:Silicates; C084550:Vitremer; D014867:Water; C006903:carbopol 940; C040964:Ketac-Fil