Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 10;9(1):1-9.
doi: 10.1080/26415275.2022.2033623. eCollection 2022.

A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials

Alpana Kumari  1 , Namita Singh  1
Affiliations

A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials

Alpana Kumari et al. Biomater Investig Dent. .

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of two glass containing restorative materials, Zirconomer and Cention N, and to compare them with a conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) (GC Fuji II).

Materials and methods: Zirconomer (Shofu) and GC Fuji II (GC Corp.) are self-curing GICs whereas Cention N (IvoclarVivadent) also offers a self-curing option as well as the option of light-curing using an adhesive. For evaluating microleakage, standardized class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 30 premolars. The cavities were restored with one of the three restorative materials (n = 10) according to manufacturers' instructions, Cention N being used with an adhesive (Te-EconomBond, IvoclarVivadent) and in the light-curing mode. After restoration and thermocycling, the microleakage assessment was made under a stereomicroscope at 40x magnification following immersing of the teeth in 0.5% methylene blue dye and buccolingual sectioning. For evaluating dentin shear bond strength, the occlusal surface of the 30 premolars was ground flat, and cylinders of the three restorative materials (n = 10) were bonded to the occlusal surface according to manufacturers' instructions, Cention N being used with an adhesive (Te-EconomBond, IvoclarVivadent) and in the light-curing mode. Following 24-h storage at 100% humidity, the dentin shear bond strength was measured and the fracture mode was determined under a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney and Scheffé tests (p = .05).

Results: Cention N displayed significantly less microleakage than did Zirconomer and GC Fuji II at occlusal as well as the gingival margins. Dentin shear bond strength varied significantly between 5.15 and 9.89 MPa with Cention N showing the highest bond strength and GC Fuji II the lowest.

Conclusion: In this in vitro evaluation, Cention N consistently performed better than the conventional GIC (GC Fuji II) as well as Zirconomer.

Keywords: Microleakage; Zirconomer; alkasite; glass ionomer cement; shear bond strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors and the requirements for authorship as stated earlier in this document have been met.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
0 = No dye penetration,1 = dye penetration along the interface to one-third of the cavity depth, 2 = dye penetration along the interface to two-thirds of the cavity wall depth, 3 = dye penetration up to, but not along, the axial wall, and 4 = dye penetration up to and along the axial wall.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Gingival score frequency. 0 = No dye penetration, 1 = dye penetration along the interface to one-third of the cavity depth, 2 = dye penetration along the interface to two-thirds of the cavity wall depth, 3 = dye penetration up to, but not along, the axial wall and 4 = dye penetration up to and along the axial wall.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Occlusal score frequency.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Failure mode.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, et al. . Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):192–196. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alani AH, Toh CG.. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent. 1997;22(4):173–185. - PubMed
    1. Bahsi E, Sagmak S, Dayi B, et al. . The evaluation of microleakage and fluoride release of different types of glass ionomer cements. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22(7):961–970. - PubMed
    1. Jaidka S, Somani R, Singh DJ, et al. . Comparative evaluation of compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and shear bond strength of GIC type IX, chlorhexidine-incorporated GIC and triclosan-incorporated GIC: an in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(Suppl 1):S64–S69. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Croll TP, Nicholson JW.. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(5):423–429. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources