Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and shear bond strength of mineral trioxide aggregate with composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: In a vital pulp therapy such as direct pulp capping or pulpotomy, MTA is directly placed over the pulp followed by the restoration with resin modified glass ionomer cement or composite material. An important factor determining the clinical success of such restorations is the bond between MTA and restorative material. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the bond strength of MTA with Glass Ionomer and Composite resin interface. Material and Method: The sample size was calculated as 11 in each group. Tensile and shear bond strength was measured between MTA- Glass Ionomer and MTA- Composite material. Percentage of bond failure for each group was obtained. Average and standard deviations were calculated and the data was analyzed by independent’t’ test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: Out of the total 44 samples, 29 samples showed cohesive failures. Maximum numbers of failures, i.e. 17 were in tensile bond strength group which included 8 in RMGIC group and 9 in Composite resin group. Of the 12 failures in shear bond strength, 5 were in RMGIC group and 7 in composite resin group. There was no statistically significant difference between the shear bond strength of RMGIC and Composite with MTA (p = 0.39) at confidence interval of 95%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the tensile bond strength of RMGIC and Composite samples with MTA (p = 0.41) at confidence interval of 95%. Conclusion: There was no difference in the bond strengths attained between Resin modified Glass ionomers and Resin Composites with Mineral trioxide Aggregate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)156-162
Number of pages7
JournalIndian Journal of Public Health Research and Development
Volume10
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-07-2019

Fingerprint

Pemetrexed
Shear Strength
Composite Resins
Tensile Strength
Dental Pulp Capping
Pulpotomy
Confidence Intervals
Glass Ionomer Cements
glass ionomer
mineral trioxide aggregate
Sample Size

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

@article{1400734bd10f491dbde2324d3d6e8b26,
title = "Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and shear bond strength of mineral trioxide aggregate with composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer",
abstract = "Background: In a vital pulp therapy such as direct pulp capping or pulpotomy, MTA is directly placed over the pulp followed by the restoration with resin modified glass ionomer cement or composite material. An important factor determining the clinical success of such restorations is the bond between MTA and restorative material. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the bond strength of MTA with Glass Ionomer and Composite resin interface. Material and Method: The sample size was calculated as 11 in each group. Tensile and shear bond strength was measured between MTA- Glass Ionomer and MTA- Composite material. Percentage of bond failure for each group was obtained. Average and standard deviations were calculated and the data was analyzed by independent’t’ test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: Out of the total 44 samples, 29 samples showed cohesive failures. Maximum numbers of failures, i.e. 17 were in tensile bond strength group which included 8 in RMGIC group and 9 in Composite resin group. Of the 12 failures in shear bond strength, 5 were in RMGIC group and 7 in composite resin group. There was no statistically significant difference between the shear bond strength of RMGIC and Composite with MTA (p = 0.39) at confidence interval of 95{\%}. No statistically significant difference was observed between the tensile bond strength of RMGIC and Composite samples with MTA (p = 0.41) at confidence interval of 95{\%}. Conclusion: There was no difference in the bond strengths attained between Resin modified Glass ionomers and Resin Composites with Mineral trioxide Aggregate.",
author = "S. Radhakrishnan and Arathi Rao and Ramya Shenoy and Suprabha, {B. S.}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01554.7",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "156--162",
journal = "Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development",
issn = "0976-0245",
publisher = "R.K. Sharma, Institute of Medico-Legal Publications",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and shear bond strength of mineral trioxide aggregate with composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer

AU - Radhakrishnan, S.

AU - Rao, Arathi

AU - Shenoy, Ramya

AU - Suprabha, B. S.

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Background: In a vital pulp therapy such as direct pulp capping or pulpotomy, MTA is directly placed over the pulp followed by the restoration with resin modified glass ionomer cement or composite material. An important factor determining the clinical success of such restorations is the bond between MTA and restorative material. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the bond strength of MTA with Glass Ionomer and Composite resin interface. Material and Method: The sample size was calculated as 11 in each group. Tensile and shear bond strength was measured between MTA- Glass Ionomer and MTA- Composite material. Percentage of bond failure for each group was obtained. Average and standard deviations were calculated and the data was analyzed by independent’t’ test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: Out of the total 44 samples, 29 samples showed cohesive failures. Maximum numbers of failures, i.e. 17 were in tensile bond strength group which included 8 in RMGIC group and 9 in Composite resin group. Of the 12 failures in shear bond strength, 5 were in RMGIC group and 7 in composite resin group. There was no statistically significant difference between the shear bond strength of RMGIC and Composite with MTA (p = 0.39) at confidence interval of 95%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the tensile bond strength of RMGIC and Composite samples with MTA (p = 0.41) at confidence interval of 95%. Conclusion: There was no difference in the bond strengths attained between Resin modified Glass ionomers and Resin Composites with Mineral trioxide Aggregate.

AB - Background: In a vital pulp therapy such as direct pulp capping or pulpotomy, MTA is directly placed over the pulp followed by the restoration with resin modified glass ionomer cement or composite material. An important factor determining the clinical success of such restorations is the bond between MTA and restorative material. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the bond strength of MTA with Glass Ionomer and Composite resin interface. Material and Method: The sample size was calculated as 11 in each group. Tensile and shear bond strength was measured between MTA- Glass Ionomer and MTA- Composite material. Percentage of bond failure for each group was obtained. Average and standard deviations were calculated and the data was analyzed by independent’t’ test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: Out of the total 44 samples, 29 samples showed cohesive failures. Maximum numbers of failures, i.e. 17 were in tensile bond strength group which included 8 in RMGIC group and 9 in Composite resin group. Of the 12 failures in shear bond strength, 5 were in RMGIC group and 7 in composite resin group. There was no statistically significant difference between the shear bond strength of RMGIC and Composite with MTA (p = 0.39) at confidence interval of 95%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the tensile bond strength of RMGIC and Composite samples with MTA (p = 0.41) at confidence interval of 95%. Conclusion: There was no difference in the bond strengths attained between Resin modified Glass ionomers and Resin Composites with Mineral trioxide Aggregate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073789121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073789121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01554.7

DO - 10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01554.7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85073789121

VL - 10

SP - 156

EP - 162

JO - Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development

JF - Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development

SN - 0976-0245

IS - 7

ER -