Bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching.

O. Cortes, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, J. R. Boj

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study evaluated the shear bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomers to enamel etched or unetched. Human, non-carious extracted permanent molars stored in distilled water were used. Flat buccal and lingual enamel surfaces were ground wet on 600-grit silicon carbide paper. The teeth were then distributed at random into six groups of 5 teeth (10 surfaces) each: Group 1: Fuji II LC, no enamel etching; Group 2: Fuji II LC, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 3: Dyract, no enamel etching; Group 4: Dyract, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 5: Photac-Fil, no enamel etching; Group 6: Photac-Fil, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds. Cylindrical samples of the glass ionomers were prepared in plastic molds and bonded to the enamel surface according to the manufacturers' instructions. All samples were placed in distilled water for 24 hours, and sheared with an Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The results (in MPa) were: Group 1: 11.29 +/- 4.84; Group 2: 19.64 +/- 5.43; Group 3: 8.26 +/- 3.61; Group 4: 22.04 +/- 5.40; Group 5: 2.05 +/- 3.05; Group 6: 9.12 +/- 6.61. ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls procedure revealed that on etched enamel, Fuji II LC and Dyract had a significantly higher bond strength than all the other groups tested (P < 0.0001), but not significantly different between each other. With these two groups, cohesive failure within the material was recorded in all samples while in the unetched samples, all specimens displayed an adhesive failure (glass ionomer-enamel interface). All samples with Photac-Fil, with or without enamel etching had adhesive failures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)299-301
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Dentistry
Volume6
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1 1993
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Glass Ionomer Cements
Dental Enamel
Adhesives
Tooth
Shear Strength
Water
Cheek
Tongue
Plastics
Analysis of Variance

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching. / Cortes, O.; Garcia-Godoy, Franklin; Boj, J. R.

In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 6, No. 6, 01.12.1993, p. 299-301.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e969466de63449308714455b373928c5,
title = "Bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching.",
abstract = "This study evaluated the shear bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomers to enamel etched or unetched. Human, non-carious extracted permanent molars stored in distilled water were used. Flat buccal and lingual enamel surfaces were ground wet on 600-grit silicon carbide paper. The teeth were then distributed at random into six groups of 5 teeth (10 surfaces) each: Group 1: Fuji II LC, no enamel etching; Group 2: Fuji II LC, enamel etched with 10{\%} phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 3: Dyract, no enamel etching; Group 4: Dyract, enamel etched with 10{\%} phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 5: Photac-Fil, no enamel etching; Group 6: Photac-Fil, enamel etched with 10{\%} phosphoric acid for 10 seconds. Cylindrical samples of the glass ionomers were prepared in plastic molds and bonded to the enamel surface according to the manufacturers' instructions. All samples were placed in distilled water for 24 hours, and sheared with an Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The results (in MPa) were: Group 1: 11.29 +/- 4.84; Group 2: 19.64 +/- 5.43; Group 3: 8.26 +/- 3.61; Group 4: 22.04 +/- 5.40; Group 5: 2.05 +/- 3.05; Group 6: 9.12 +/- 6.61. ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls procedure revealed that on etched enamel, Fuji II LC and Dyract had a significantly higher bond strength than all the other groups tested (P < 0.0001), but not significantly different between each other. With these two groups, cohesive failure within the material was recorded in all samples while in the unetched samples, all specimens displayed an adhesive failure (glass ionomer-enamel interface). All samples with Photac-Fil, with or without enamel etching had adhesive failures.",
author = "O. Cortes and Franklin Garcia-Godoy and Boj, {J. R.}",
year = "1993",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "299--301",
journal = "American Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0894-8275",
publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching.

AU - Cortes, O.

AU - Garcia-Godoy, Franklin

AU - Boj, J. R.

PY - 1993/12/1

Y1 - 1993/12/1

N2 - This study evaluated the shear bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomers to enamel etched or unetched. Human, non-carious extracted permanent molars stored in distilled water were used. Flat buccal and lingual enamel surfaces were ground wet on 600-grit silicon carbide paper. The teeth were then distributed at random into six groups of 5 teeth (10 surfaces) each: Group 1: Fuji II LC, no enamel etching; Group 2: Fuji II LC, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 3: Dyract, no enamel etching; Group 4: Dyract, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 5: Photac-Fil, no enamel etching; Group 6: Photac-Fil, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds. Cylindrical samples of the glass ionomers were prepared in plastic molds and bonded to the enamel surface according to the manufacturers' instructions. All samples were placed in distilled water for 24 hours, and sheared with an Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The results (in MPa) were: Group 1: 11.29 +/- 4.84; Group 2: 19.64 +/- 5.43; Group 3: 8.26 +/- 3.61; Group 4: 22.04 +/- 5.40; Group 5: 2.05 +/- 3.05; Group 6: 9.12 +/- 6.61. ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls procedure revealed that on etched enamel, Fuji II LC and Dyract had a significantly higher bond strength than all the other groups tested (P < 0.0001), but not significantly different between each other. With these two groups, cohesive failure within the material was recorded in all samples while in the unetched samples, all specimens displayed an adhesive failure (glass ionomer-enamel interface). All samples with Photac-Fil, with or without enamel etching had adhesive failures.

AB - This study evaluated the shear bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomers to enamel etched or unetched. Human, non-carious extracted permanent molars stored in distilled water were used. Flat buccal and lingual enamel surfaces were ground wet on 600-grit silicon carbide paper. The teeth were then distributed at random into six groups of 5 teeth (10 surfaces) each: Group 1: Fuji II LC, no enamel etching; Group 2: Fuji II LC, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 3: Dyract, no enamel etching; Group 4: Dyract, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds; Group 5: Photac-Fil, no enamel etching; Group 6: Photac-Fil, enamel etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds. Cylindrical samples of the glass ionomers were prepared in plastic molds and bonded to the enamel surface according to the manufacturers' instructions. All samples were placed in distilled water for 24 hours, and sheared with an Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The results (in MPa) were: Group 1: 11.29 +/- 4.84; Group 2: 19.64 +/- 5.43; Group 3: 8.26 +/- 3.61; Group 4: 22.04 +/- 5.40; Group 5: 2.05 +/- 3.05; Group 6: 9.12 +/- 6.61. ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls procedure revealed that on etched enamel, Fuji II LC and Dyract had a significantly higher bond strength than all the other groups tested (P < 0.0001), but not significantly different between each other. With these two groups, cohesive failure within the material was recorded in all samples while in the unetched samples, all specimens displayed an adhesive failure (glass ionomer-enamel interface). All samples with Photac-Fil, with or without enamel etching had adhesive failures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027903448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027903448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 299

EP - 301

JO - American Journal of Dentistry

JF - American Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0894-8275

IS - 6

ER -