sdj-10078

The Effect of Two Adhesive Agents on Shear Bond strength Between Fresh Dental Amalgam and Resin Composite

*Aveen K. Ibraheem, **Salam D. Alqaysi

*Sulaimani Directorate of Health, Sulaimani, Iraq

**Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq.

Submitted: 14/10/2018; Accepted: 28/12/2018; Published 31/12/2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10078

Abstract

Objective: To assess and compare the results on the bond strength of two adhesive agents that bond fresh amalgam to two types of composite restorations, and to check the mode of bond failure.

Methods: Sixty standardized circular cavities were prepared in a block of polymethyl methacrylate with standardized dimensions. Fresh amalgam was condensed to fill the cavity, then a gelatin mold with standardized dimensions was placed over the fresh amalgam,and the composite resin was bonded to the amalgam. Samples were assigned into three main groups, each containing (20) samples. G1: Amalgam bonded to composite without adhesive agent, G2: Amalgam bonded to composite by single bond universal adhesive, G3: Amalgam bonded to composite by scotch bond MPP, and each group was divided into two subgroups of (n=10) (Nanofill and Nanohybrid composite) to measure shear bond strength, which was followed by evaluation of debonding in all samples under a stereomicroscope to assess the mode of failure.

Results: All The results showed that G3 has higher shear bond strength than G1 and G2, and this is statistically significant at (p=0.001, p=0.005) respectively, while G1 has the lowest shear bond strength and a statistically non-significant difference from G2 at (p=0.539). It was also found that the type of composite resin has no effect on bond strength and statistically non-significant difference was found for any of the sub-groups. Following debonding of all the samples, they were examined under a stereomicroscope, and the adhesive failure present was about (%65), and mixed failure present about (%35), while cohesive failure was (%0).

Conclusions: Highest bond strength was found with Scotch bond multi-purpose plus (SBMPP) agent compared to other groups. The strength of the fresh amalgam bonding to the composite resin without an adhesive agent was low. The bond strength with single bond universal adhesive was lower than with the SBMPP system.

Keywords: Fresh amalgam, Composite resin, Adhesive agent, Shear bond strength.

Full Article - PDF

References:

1. Demarco F, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR,Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87-101.

2. Udoye C, Aguwa E. Amalgam safety and dentists' attitude: a survey among a Subpopulation of Nigerian dentists. Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):467-71.

3. Firouzmandi M, Doozandeh M, Jowkar Z, Abbasi S. Effect of composite/amalgam thickness on fracture resistance of maxillary premolar teeth, restored with combined amalgam-composite restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016;8(3):e268-72.

4. Polydorou O, König A, Hellwig E, Kümmerer K. Long‐term release of monomers from modern dental‐composite materials. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009; 117(1):68-75.

5. Moraes RR, Gonçalves LdS, Lancellotti A, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti M. Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins?. Oper Dent. 2009;34(5):551-57.

6. Chan KH, Mai Y, Kim H, Tong KC, Ng D, Hsiao J. resin Composite Filling. Materials: a review.Materials. 2010;3(2):1228-43.

7. Tolidis K, Boutsiouki C, Gerasimou P. Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities. Braz J Oral Sci. 2013;12(2):100-104.

8. Kaur G, Singh M, Bal C, Singh U. Comparative evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(1):46-51.

9. Portugal J, Marques P, Jardim L, Leitão J. Shear bond strength of aged dental amalgam repaired with composite. Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial. 2008;49(2):69-74.

10. Demarco F, Ramos O, Mota C, Formolo E, Justino L. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent. 2001;26(3):253-259.

11. Özcan M, Vallittu P, Huysmans M-C, Kalk W, Vahlberg T. Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17(1):7-13.

12. Al-Jazairy YH. Shear peel bond strength of compomers veneered to amalgam. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85(4):396-400.

13. Bichacho N, Pilo R, Brosh T, Berkovich M, Helft M .Shear bond strength of composite resin to fresh amalgam. Oper Dent.1995;20(2):68-73.

14. Dabas D, Patil AC, Uppin VM . Evaluation of the effect of concentration and duration of application of sodium ascorbate hydrogel on the bond strength of composite resin to bleached enamel. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(4):356-60.

15. Pilo R, Brosh T, Shapinko E, Dodiuk H. Long-term durability of adhesive systems bonded to fresh amalgam. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76(4):431-36.

16. Fruits TJ, Duncanson Jr MG, Coury TL . Interfacial bond strengths of amalgam bonded to amalgam and resin composite bonded to amalgam. Quintessence int. 1998;29(5):327-34.

17. Shafiei F, Memarpour M, Karimi F. Fracture resistance of cuspal coverage of ndodontically treated maxillary premolars with combined composite-amalgam compared to other techniques. Oper Dent. 2011;36(4):439-47.

18. Özcan M, Koolman C, Aladag A, Dündar M. Effects of different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of composite resin to amalgam. Oper Dent. 2011;36(3):318-25.

19. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A. et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. A review. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e100-12.

20. Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue-. A review. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12(5):343-71.

21. Bedini R, Chistolini P, De Angelis G, Albergo G .Mechanical performance of dental amalgam-composite interfaces. Clin Mater. 1994;17(3):147-50.

22. Blackham J, Vandewalle K, Lien W. Properties of hybrid resin composite systems containing prepolymerized filler particles. Oper Dent. 2009;34(6):697-702.

23. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater. 2007;23(1):51-9.

24. Lien W, Vandewalle KS. Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater. 2010;26(4):337-44.

25. Cardash HS, Bichacho N, Imber S, Liberman R. A. combined amalgam and composite resin restoration. J prosthet Dent. 1990;63(5):502-05.

26. Giannini M, Paulillo LA, Ambrosano GM. Effect of surface roughness on amalgam repair using adhesive systems. Braz Dent J. 2002;13(3):179-83.

27. Sharafeddin F, Moradian H. Microleakage of class II combined Amalgam-Composite restorations using different composites and bonding agents. J Dent Teh Univ Med Sci. 2008;5(3):126-30.

28. Shafiei F, Memarpour M, Karimi F. Fracture resistance of cuspal coverage of endodontically treated maxillary premolars with combined composite-amalgam compared to other techniques. Oper Dent. 2011;36(4):439-47.

29.McLean D, Meyers E, Guillory V, Vandewalle K.Enamel bond strength of new universal adhesive bonding agents. Oper Dent. 2015;40(4):410-17.

30. Hadavi F, Hey JH, Ambrose ER. Shear bond strength of composite resin to amalgam: An experiment in vitro using different bonding systems. Oper Dent. 1991;16(1):2-5.

31. Alex G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(1):15-26.

32. Kournetas N, Kakaboura A, Giftopoulos D, Chakmachi M, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstorfer J.Marginal behavior of self-etch adhesive/composite and combined amalgam-composite restorations.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2010;18(2):70-7.

33. Machado C, Sanchez E, Alapati S, Seghi R, Johnston W. Shear bond strength of the amalgam-resin composite interface. Oper Dent.2007;32(4):341-46.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.