Conservative Dentistry

0 downloads 9 Views 4MB Size Report
Abstract. Significance of Study: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (calcium silicate‑based materials) have great importance in dentistry. There is ...

ISSN: 0972-0707

Journal of Conservative Dentistry • Volume 20 • Issue 1 • January - February 2017 • Pages 00-00

Journal of

Conservative Dentistry Volume 20

Issue 5

September-October 2017

Official Publication of

Indian Association of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Online full text at

www.jcd.org.in

Original Article

Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine Fatih Tulumbaci, Merve Erkmen Almaz1, Volkan Arikan1, Merve Safa Mutluay2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, 1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, 2Vocational School of Health Services, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey

Abstract Significance of Study: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (calcium silicate‑based materials) have great importance in dentistry. There is no study comparing the bond strength of Biodentine and MTA for composite, compomer, and compomer or resin‑modified glass ionomer (RMGIC). Although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; in this study, MTA has shown better shear bond strength (SBS) to restorative materials. Aim: Recently, a variety of calcium silicate‑based materials are often used for pulp capping, perforation repair, and endodontic therapies. After those treatment procedures, teeth are commonly restored with composite resin, (RMGIC materials in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SBS of composite resin (Filtek™ Z250; 3M ESPE, USA), compomer (Dyract XP; LD Caulk/Dentsply, USA), and resin‑modified glass ionomer (Photac‑Fil Quick Aplicap; 3M ESPE, USA) to white MTA and Biodentine. Materials and Methods: Ninety acrylic cylindrical blocks were prepared and divided into two groups (n = 45). The acrylic blocks were randomly allocated into 3 subgroups; Group‑1A: MTA + composite (Filtek™ Z250), Group‑1B: MTA + compomer (Dyract XP), Group‑1C: MTA + RMGIC (Photac‑Fil Quick Aplicap), Group‑2A: Biodentine + composite, Group‑2B: Biodentine + compomer, Group‑2C: Biodentine + RMGIC. The specimens were mounted in Universal Testing Machine. A crosshead speed 1 mm/min was applied to each specimen using a knife‑edge blade until the bond between the MTA/Biodentine and restorative material failed. Failure modes of each group were evaluated under polarized light microscope at ×40 magnification. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between MTA + Composite resin with MTA + Compomer; and MTA + RMGIC with Biodentine + RMGIC (P > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between other groups (P