Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annali di Stomatologia logoLink to Annali di Stomatologia
. 2014 Mar 31;5(1):15–22.

Effects of dentin surface treatments on shear bond strength of glass-ionomer cements

Claudio Poggio 1,✉, Riccardo Beltrami 2, Andrea Scribante 2, Marco Colombo 1, Marco Lombardini 1
PMCID: PMC3974553  PMID: 24753797

Summary

Aim

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength of a conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to dentin.

Materials and methods

80 bovine permanent incisors were used. 40 cylindrical specimens of a GIC (Fuji IX GP Extra) and 40 cylindrical specimens of a RMGIC (Fuji II LC) were attached to the dentin. The teeth were then randomly assigned to 8 groups of equal size (n=10), 4 for every type of glass-ionomer cement, corresponding to type of dentin surface treatments. Group 1: GC Cavity Conditioner; Group 2: 37% phosphoric acid gel; Group 3: Clearfil SE Bond; Group 4: no dentin conditioning (control). The specimens were placed in a universal testing machine (Model 3343, Instron Corp., Canton, Mass., USA) and subsequently tested for shear bond strength (MPa).

Results

ANOVA showed the presence of significant differences among the various groups. Post hoc Tukey test showed different values of shear bond strength for Fuji IX GP Extra and for Fuji II LC. The different conditioners variably influence the adhesion of the glass-ionomer cements tested. Conclusions. RMGIC shear bond to dentin was higher than GIC. The use of a Self-etch adhesive system improved the shear bond strength values of RMGIC and lowered the shear bond strength values of GIC significantly.

Keywords: conventional glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, dentin pre-treatment, phosphoric acid, polyacrylic acid, self-etch adhesives, shear bond strength test

Introduction

Glass-ionomer cements (GICs) were developed and first presented by Wilson and Kent (1) in 1972: the goal was finding an ideal restorative material with physical properties similar to tooth structure, with adhesion to dentine/enamel, with resistance to degradation in the oral cavity (2) and with ability to release fluoride (3). GICs are able to bond chemically to enamel, dentin, plastics, and non-precious metals (4, 5); other potential advantages of GICs are adhesion in a wet substrate and the release of fluoride ions over long periods (6). Previous studies showed that enamel adjacent to glass-ionomer cements was less deeply and less frequently demineralised compared with that adjacent to non fluoridated materials (7, 8). Moreover, glass-ionomer cements were shown to release fluoride longer and at higher levels than fluoride-containing composites (9). The concept that glass-ionomers can act as rechargeable fluoride release devices has been proposed (10). Studies reported that the regular use of fluoride toothpastes can result in the absorption of fluoride into the glass-ionomer and that this fluoride can subsequently be released into the adjacent tooth structure (11, 12). Initial formulation of GICs underwent several modifications with the intent to improve handling and physical properties. A remarkable improvement of this class of material occurred with the introduction of the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC). This material is characterised by the addition of photo-activated metacrilate, and a small amount of resin, such as 2-HEMA or Bis-GMA, to the conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) (13, 14). Over the years many studies have been carried out to demonstrate that GICs and RMGICs bond naturally to the tooth surface (15, 16). Bond strengths are lower than composite resins bonded with appropriate bonding agents, but the durability of the bond appears greater (17). This may be attributed to the bioactive nature of the interface between the cement and the tooth (15, 18), which leads over time to a strong, durable bond formed by an ion-diffusion process (19). Many conditioning solutions, such as polyacrylic acid and phosphoric acid in different concentrations have been investigated as a pre-treatment to GICs and RMGICs, in order to improve their adhesion to the dentin surface (20–23). Dentin conditioning can act differently on GICs and RMGICs due to the presence of resin components that can infiltrate into the demineralised dentin and after polymerisation result in micromechanical retention (24).

The purpose of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength of a conventional glass-ionomer cement and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to dentin.

Materials and methods

In the present in vitro study, 80 bovine mandibular incisor were collected and randomly divided into 8 groups (n=10). Tissue remnants and debris were removed with periodontal curettes. The teeth were stored in 0.5% chloramine solution for one week and later in distilled water at 4º C. The teeth were embedded in self-cured acrylic resin, obtaining 2.0 cm large × 2.0 cm thick specimens. The teeth were randomly assigned to 8 groups (n=10) according to the dentin treatment received. The vestibular enamel was removed to obtain a flat surface of dentin. In all groups, a high-speed turbine attached to a device was used for standardised dentin preparation. The lingual dentin surface was exposed using a high-speed carbide rotary instrument (# H21L.314.014; Komet, Germany) under copious water irrigation. The surface was rinsed with water and gently air dried. Different types of surface treatments were employed: GC Cavity Conditioner, 37% phosphoric acid gel, Clearfil SE Bond, no dentin conditioning. 40 cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter × 4 mm height) of a conventional glass-ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP Extra) and 40 cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter × 4 mm height) of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) were attached to the dentin. The capsules of glass-ionomer cements were activated and mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The prepared mixture was packed into a cylindrical plastic moulds (a diameter of 4 mm and a height of 4 mm) placed on the cut surface of the tooth, and packing them until they were full. In GIC specimens, there was a 6-min interval from the start of mixing to complete curing of the cement, but in RMGIC the specimens were immediately cured using a LED curing light in softstart-polymerisation mode (Celalux 2 High-Power LED curing-light, Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) for 10 seconds at a light intensity of 1000 mW/cm2. The tip of the light-curing unit was placed 1 mm above the surface of the cement. The teeth were then randomly assigned to 8 groups of equal size (n=10) corresponding to the type of dentin surface treatments and to the cylindrical specimen attached. Group 1: GC Cavity Conditioner (20% polyacrylic acid and 3% aluminum chloride hexahydrate) for 20 seconds, rinsed and gently air-dried plus Fuji IX GP Extra. Group 2: 37% phosphoric acid gel (Total Etch; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) for 15 seconds, rinsed and gently air-dried plus Fuji IX GP Extra. Group 3: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) applied according the Instruction for use plus Fuji IX GP Extra. Group 4: no dentin conditioning (control) plus Fuji IX GP Extra. Group 5: GC Cavity Conditioner (20% polyacrylic acid and 3% aluminum chloride hexahydrate) for 20 seconds, rinsed and gently airdried plus Fuji II LC. Group 6: 37% phosphoric acid gel (Total Etch; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) for 15 seconds, rinsed and gently air-dried plus Fuji II LC. Group 7: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) plus Fuji II LC. Group 8: no dentin conditioning (control) plus Fuji II LC. Details of materials employed are presented in Table 1 and in Table 2.

Table 1.

Glass-ionomer cements employed in the study.

Material Type Composition Manufacturer Batch Number
Fuji IX GP Extra in caps GIC Polyacrylic acid, Fluoro-alumino-silicate glass, Distilled water GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan 1102214
Fuji II LC in caps RMGIC 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), Urethane Dimethacrylate (UDMA), Polyacrylic acid, Fluoro alumino-silicate glass, Distilled water GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan 1103127
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Conditioners employed in the study.

Material Composition Manufacturer Batch Number
GC Cavity Conditioner 20% polyacrylic acid, 3% aluminum chloride hexahydrate, distilled water GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan 1102171
Total Etch phosphoric acid (37 % in H2O), thickeners and pigments Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein P35844
Clearfil SE Bond Primer: 10-MDP, HEMA, Hydrophilic dimethacrylate, CQ, N,N-Diethanol-p-toluidine, water. Kuraray Medical, Sakazu, Okayama, Japan Primer: 01040AA
Bond: 10-MDP, Bis-GMA, Hydrophilic dimethacrylate, HEMA, CQ, N,N-Diethanol-p-toluidine, silanated colloidal silica. Bond: 01556AA
Open in a new tab

Shear Bond Strength Testing

Specimens were stored in a solution of 0,1% (weight/volume) thymol for 24 hours and then were placed in a universal testing machine (Model 3343, Instron Corporation, Norwood, MA, USA) (Fig. 1). Specimens were secured in the lower jaw of the machine so that the bonded cylinder base was parallel to the shear force direction (Fig. 2). The shear bond strength was performed at 0.5 mm/minute until the sample ruptured. Specimens were stressed in an occluso-gingival direction at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min (16–18). The maximum load necessary to debond was recorded in Newton (N) and calculated in MPa as a ratio of Newton to surface area of the cylinder. After the testing procedure, the fractured surfaces were examined with an optical microscope (Stereomicroscope SR, Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) at a magnification of 10× to determine failure modes and classified as adhesive failures, cohesive failures within the composite, or cohesive failures within the tooth (19). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to assess the amount of adhesive left on the enamel surface (20). This scale ranges from 0 to 3. A score of 0 indicates no adhesive remaining on the tooth in the bonding area; 1 indicates mixed failure with less than half of the adhesive remaining on the tooth; 2 indicates mixed failure with more than half of the adhesive remaining on the tooth; and 3 indicates all adhesive remaining on the tooth. The ARI scores were used as a more complex method of defining bond failure site among the enamel, the adhesive, and the composite (25). Samples were thermocycled and debonded using a shear force with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Shear bond strengths were determined using a Hounsfield Universal Testing machine, at a loading rate of 1 mm/min, using a knife edge placed 1 mm away from the interface. Loads at failure were converted to bond strengths by dividing by the contact areas of the cylinders. After mechanical failure, the fracture modes in all the specimens were evaluated under a stereomicroscope (Nikon; Japan) at ×20.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Universal testing machine Model 3343, Istrom (Universal testing machine, Model 3343, Instron Corporation, Norwood, MA, USA).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Universal testing machine Model 3343, Istrom (Universal testing machine, Model 3343, Instron Corporation, Norwood, MA, USA). The bonded cylinder base was parallel to the shear force direction.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with Stata 9.0 software (Stata, College Station, Tex). Descriptive statistics, including the mean, standard deviation, median, and minimum and maximum values were calculated for all groups. Kolmogorov and Smirnov test was applied to assess normality of distributions. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to determine whether significant differences in debond values existed among the groups. The Tukey test was used as post-hoc. The chi-squared test was used to determine significant differences in the ARI scores among the different groups. Significance for all statistical tests was predetermined at P<0.05.

Results

Descriptive statistics of the shear bond strength (MPa) of the different groups are illustrated in Table 3 and in Figure 3. ANOVA showed the presence of significant differences among the various groups (P<0.0001). Post hoc Tukey test showed that when testing Fuji IX GP Extra the application of cavity conditioner (Group 1) showed significantly higher shear bond strength than all other surface treatments (P<0.05). Moreover phosphoric acid gel application (Group 2) showed no significant difference in shear strength values than no conditioning control group (Group 4). Lowest values were reported when Clearfil SE Bond was applied (Group 3). On the other hand, when testing Fuji II LC the highest shear bond strength values (P<0.001) were reported when Clearfil SE Bond was applied (Group 7). Significantly lower (P<0.05) values were reported when Cavity conditioner was applied (Group 5). Lowest shear strength values (P<0.01) were reported both when enamel was pretreated with phosphoric acid gel (Group 6) and when no conditioner was applied (Group 8). Overall, Fuji II LC showed significantly higher shear bond strength values than Fuji IX GP Extra (P<0.0001). When comparing ARI Score results of the different groups, no statistical difference was found in frequency distribution among various groups, that all showed a significant prevalence of ARI Score of “0” (Fig. 4).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of the different groups tested.

Groups Material Enamel pre-treatment Mean SD Min Mdn Max Tukey *
1 Fuji IX GP Extra Cavity Conditioner 3.51 1.22 1.51 3.34 5.34 A
2 Fuji IX GP Extra Ortophosphoric acid 1.86 1.10 0.18 1.11 5.02 B
3 Fuji IX GP Extra Clearfil SE Bond 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C
4 Fuji IX GP Extra No conditioning 1.94 0.96 0.84 1.92 3.36 B
5 Fuji II LC Cavity Conditioner 10.24 2.20 5.10 11.09 14.28 D
6 Fuji II LC Ortophosphoric acid 6.53 1.90 2.08 6.30 11.23 E
7 Fuji II LC Clearfil SE Bond 15.88 4.40 7.03 15.69 26.29 F
8 Fuji II LC No conditioning 5.72 2.82 2.46 5.17 11.66 E
Open in a new tab
*

Tukey post hoc: Means with the same letters are not significantly different.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Mean shear bond strength and standard deviation of the different groups tested.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

ARI Scores percentages of the different groups tested.

Discussion

The adhesion of dental materials to dentin has been extensively investigated in the last decades in order to make it effective and durable, but due to dentin complexity this is an arduous procedure (26). Unlike enamel, dentin is a live, dynamic tissue that contains greater portion of water and organic material. It is connected to the pulp through the dentinal tubules, which extend from the pulp to the dentin-enamel junction. These tubules contain dentinal fluid that is responsible for the intrinsic humidity of this structure (26, 27). Different mechanical tests have been proposed to assess the bonding performance of restorative materials. Although it suffers criticism, shear testing has been widely used to evaluate the bonding ability of adhesive materials to dental structure (22, 28). Particularly regarding GICs, which present low bond strength, other tests may be difficult to apply (29). Previous studies have shown that typical shear bond strengths of glass-ionomer cements to dentine lie in the range 1–3 MPa, and rarely exceed 5 MPa (30, 31). The bond strength RMGICs to dentin have been reported as higher than that of conventional GICs (32). However, the exact mechanism of adhesion of this material is not completely established. Some SEM studies revealed the formation of tags at the dentin-cement interface resultant from the RMGIC polymer penetration into the dentinal tubules (21, 28, 33).

The application of surface-altering solutions to dentin prior to bonding with glass-ionomer cements has a long history (34, 35). The purpose of applying these solutions has been to increase the strength of the bond formed between the dentin surface and cement. For chemically-cured glass-ionomer cements, one of these first solutions used for this purpose was citric acid (36). Although 50% citric acid was commonly used as a dentin conditioning agent, it fell out of favour because it lacked biocompatibility (37), opened dentin tubules (38), and produced either no increase or decrease in bond strength (38, 39). Polyacrylic acid in various concentrations has also been suggested as a dentin conditioner prior to placement of chemically set glass-ionomer cement because Powis et al. (38) believed that it increases wettability of dentin surface and improves ion exchange with the cement. Although researchers have recommended its use in an attempt to maximise bond strength, suggested concentrations and application times have varied. Berry et al. (40) used SEM to evaluate dentin surfaces treated with number of conditioning solutions and concluded that a 5 second application of 40% polyacrylic acid produced the most ideal surface for bonding. However, Long et al. (41) found that a 30 second treatment with either 30% or 35% polyacrylic acid produced bond strengths that were significantly higher than those produced using 15%, 20%, 25% and 40% solutions. Although differences in opinion remain concerning application times and concentrations for polyacrylic acid, researchers continue to recommend its use as a dentin pre-treatment with chemically set glass-ionomer products. Polyacrylic acid is the most commonly used conditioner for conventional GICs because it is capable of cleansing the dentin surface without completely unplugging the dentinal tubules. The increase in bonding efficiency resulting from conditioning can be attributed to: a cleansing effect which removes loose cutting debris following cavity preparation, a partial demineralisation effect which increases the surface area and creates microporosities and a chemical interaction of the polyalkenoic acid with residual hydroxyapatite. The auto-adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to tooth tissue has recently been elucidated to be two-fold in nature. Micromechanical interlocking is achieved by shallow hybridisation of the micro-porous, hydroxyapatite-coated collagen network. In this respect, glass-ionomer cements can be considered as adhering to tooth tissue through a kind of self-etch approach. As the second part of self-adhesion mechanism, true primary chemical bonding occurs through the formation of ionic bonds between the carboxyl groups of the polyalkenoic acid and calcium of hydroxyapatite that remained around the exposed surface collagen. The polyacrylic acid pre-treatment is much milder than a traditional phosphoric acid treatment, and the exposed collagen fibrils are not completely denuded of hydroxyapatite. The phosphoric acid treatment demineralised superficial dentin to a variable thickness of the order of several microns (depending on time of application) and the hydroxyapatite removal prevented formation of ion exchange in which the carboxyl groups of the cement interacted with calcium ions and phosphate from hydroxyapatite. Our research shows that the use of polyacrylic acid on dentin increases shear strength value of GIC whilst the use of another system for pre-treatment, phosphoric acid, shows no significant difference in shear strength values.

Dentin surface treatment remains a topic of research as new, resin-containing glass-ionomer products like visible light activated liners/bases are introduced to the market. Prati et al. (23) evaluated the effects of nine different dentin surface treatments on the shear bond strength of Vitrabond to human dentin. They found that although many of the treatments significantly altered the dentin as observed using scanning electron microscopy, only neutral and acidic oxalate solutions significantly increased the bond strength. This finding implies that glass-ionomer products which contain resin may require dentin treatments that differ from those used with traditional glass-ionomer cements. It should not be surprising then that the dentin treatment used with recently developed visible light activated glass-ionomer restorative materials differs from those recommended for use with chemically set glass-ionomers forms. This is probably due to the liquid component that contains acrylic monomers: dentin treatment with dentin bonding primers rather than polyacrylic acid may be effective in maximising bond strengths. Prisma Universal Bond (30% hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 6% phosphonated penta-acrylate ester in ethanol) and similar primers that contain hydrophilic monomers facilitate wetting of dentin and enhance bonding between dentin and resin-containing materials (42). However, dentin treatment with polyacrylic acid is recommended by the manufacturer of Fuji II LC considering the fact that the liquid of Fuji II LC contains approximately 35% hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (manufacturer’s data).

Previous studies demonstrated a significant improvement in the bond strength of Fuji II LC after conditioning with polyacrylic acid (43–45). Pereira et al. (28) observed resin tag formation in dentin specimens pretreated with polyacrylic acid and restored with Fuji II LC. Fuji II LC contains HEMA which can facilitate an improvement in the wetting ability as well as suitable bonding (46). A hybrid-like layer was reported to form at the Fuji II LC/dentin interface when conditioning was carried out prior to application of this cement (44). According to many Authors phosphoric acid conditioning prior to RMGIC application was able to improve adhesion to dentin. The effective removal of the smear layer, exposure of collagen and opening of dentinal tubules promoted a better resin monomer (HEMA) penetration within the underlying dentin, thus creating a hybrid layer. Hybrid layer increases the surface energy and contributes to provide a better moisture of the dentin surface creating an interdiffusion zone between the cement and dentin matrix, which contributes to micromechanical retention, in addition to chemical adhesion to dentin (21, 22, 48). According to the previous research this study demonstrated the dentin bond strength of Fuji II LC using Clearfil SE Bond (contain hydrophilic monomers) was statistically higher than other treatments or no treatments (in the present study unconditioned specimens showed significantly lower bond strength results than all conditioned specimens). The better bonding performance of RMGICs compared to conventional GICs could be due to their expected dual mechanism of adhesion (32). Resin cements are composites of a resin matrix, such as Bis-GMA or urethane dimethacrylate, and fine inorganic particles as filler (48). HEMA is an example of a hydrophilic primer, used to improve the infiltration of adhesive monomers into demineralised dentin by wetting the surface of collagen fibres and maintaining the collagen network in an expanded state by stiffening the collagen fibres (49, 50). In addition, the increase in the bond strength can be attributed to the polymerisation of HEMA leaving of a film of polymerised material on the dentin surface (51, 52). Also, HEMA increases the infusion and impregnation of resin monomers into demineralised dentinal matrix. Thus, the interfacial hybrid zone formed by polymerized resins, including HEMA must have played an important role in enhancing the bonding of resin materials (53).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study and according to the methodology used in our study and the statistical analysis obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  • RMGIC showed significantly higher shear bond strength to dentin than GIC; this can be attributed to action of HEMA that can have played an important role in enhancing the bonding of RMGIC;

  • the use of adhesive system, as Clearfil SE Bond, improved shear bond strength of RMGIC to dentin because it contains hydrophilic monomers that enhance bonding between dentin and RMGIC;

  • the application of adhesive system, as Clearfil SE Bond, significantly lowered shear strength of GIC: therefore adhesive application is not recommended when using conventional glass-ionomer cements.

References

  • 1.Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry: the glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;15(4):133–135. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Walls AWG. Glass polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements: a review. J Dent. 1986;14(6):231–246. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(86)90030-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials. 1998;19(6):503–508. doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00130-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kent BE, Lewis GG, Wilson AD. The properties of a glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1973;135:322–326. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4803083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hotz P, McClean JW, Sced I, Wilson AD. The bonding of glass-ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Br Dent J. 1977;142:41–47. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4803864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cook PA, Youngson CC. An in vitro study of the bond strength of a glass-ionomer cement in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod. 1988;15:247–253. doi: 10.1179/bjo.15.4.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dijkman GEHM, Arends J. Secondary caries in situ around fluoride-releasing light-curing composites: a quantitative model investigation on four materials, with a fluoride content between 0 and 26% vol. Caries Res. 1992;26:351–257. doi: 10.1159/000261467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kindelan JD. In vitro measurement of enamel demineralization in the assessment of fluoride-leaching orthodontic bonding agents. Br J Orthod. 1996;23:343–349. doi: 10.1179/bjo.23.4.343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chadwick SM, Gordon PH. An investigation into the fluoride release of a variety of orthodontic bonding agents. Br J Orthod. 1995;22:29–33. doi: 10.1179/bjo.22.1.29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers. Scand Dent J Res. 1991;99:241–245. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1991.tb01891.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hatibovic-Kofman S, Koch G. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cement in vivo and in vitro. Swed Dent J. 1991;15:253–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Seppä L, Forss H, Ögaard B. The effect of fluoride application on fluoride release and the antibacterial action of glass-ionomers. J Dent Res. 1993;72:1310–1314. doi: 10.1177/00220345930720090901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mathis R, Ferracane JL. Properties of a glass-ionomer/resin-composite hybrid material. Dent Mater. 1989;5(5):355–358. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(89)90130-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Di Nicolo R, Shintome LK, Myaki SI, Nagayassu MP. Bond strength of resin modified glass-ionomer cement to primary dentin after cutting with different bur types and dentin conditioning. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15(5):459–464. doi: 10.1590/S1678-7757200700050001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mount GJ. Colour atlas of glass-ionomer cements. 3rd edn. Martin Dunitz; London: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972 Feb 15;132(4):133–135. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tyas MJ. Cariostatic effect of glass-ionomer cement: a five-year clinical study. Aust Dent J. 1991 Jun;36(3):236–239. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1991.tb04710.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shimada Y, Kondo Y, Inokoshi S, Tagami J, Antonucci JM. Demineralizing effect of dental cements on human dentin. Quintessence Int. 1999 Apr;30(4):267–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ngo H, Mount GJ, Peters MC. A study of glass-ionomer cement and its interface with enamel and dentin using a low-temperature, high-resolution scanning electron microscopic technique. Quintessence Int. 1997 Jan;28(1):63–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Erickson RL, Glasspole EA. Bonding to tooth structure: a comparison of glass-ionomer and composite resin systems. J Esthet Dent. 1994;6(5):227–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1994.tb00864.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nakanuma K, Hayakawa T, Tomita T, Yamazaki M. Effect of the application of dentin bonding agent on the adhesion between the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and dentin. Dent Mater. 1998;14(4):281–286. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(98)00040-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pereira PNR, Yamada T, Inokoshi S, Burrow MF, Sano H, Tagami J. Adhesion of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements using resin bonding systems. J Dent. 1998;26(5–6):478–485. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00059-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Prati C, Montanari G, Biagin G, Fava F, Pashley DH. Effects of dentin surface treatments on shear bond strength of Vitrabond. Dent Mater. 1992;8(1):21–26. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90048-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Burrow MF, Nopnakeepong U, Phrukkanon S. A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentin bonding systems to primary and permanent dentin. Dent Mater. 2002;18(3):239–245. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00041-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Ishikiriama A, da Silva e Souza MH, Junior, Delazari RC. Bond strength between resin composite and etched and non-etched glass-ionomer. Braz Dent J. 1997;8:73–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Swift EJ, Junior, Pawlus MA, Vargas MA. Shear bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent. 1995;20(4):138–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Garberoglio R, Brännström M. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of human dental tubules. Arch Oral Biol. 1976;21(6):355–362. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9969(76)80003-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pereira PNR, Yamada T, Tei R, Tagami J. Bond strength and interface micromorphology of an improved resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Am J Dent. 1997;10(3):128–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wang L, Sakai VT, Kawai ES, Buzalaf MAR, Atta MT. Effect of adhesive systems associated with resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(2):110–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01536.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Burke FM, Lynch E. Glass polyalkenoate bond strength to dentine after chemomechanical caries removal. J Dent. 1994;22(5):283–91. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(94)90061-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Berry EA, 3rd, Powers JM. Bond strength of glass-ionomers to coronal and radicular dentin. Oper Dent. 1994;19(4):122–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Almuammar MF, Schulman A, Salama F. Shear bond strength of six restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001;25(3):221–225. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.25.3.r8g48vn51l46421m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abdalla AI. Morphological interface between hybrid ionomers and dentin with or without smear-layer removal. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27(9):808–814. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00601.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Causton BE, Samara-Vickrama DY, Johnson NW. Effect of calcifying fluid on the bonding of cements and composites to dentin, in vitro. Br Dent J. 1976;140:339–442. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4803757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shalabi HS, AsmusseN E, Jorgensen KD. Increased of a glass-ionomer cement to dentin by means of FeCl3. Scand J Dent Res. 1981;89:348–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1981.tb01693.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Prodger TE, Symonds M. ASPA adhesion study. Br Dent J. 1977;143:266–270. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4803984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Aboush YE, Jenkins CB. The effect of poly(acrylic acid) cleanser on the adhesion of a glass polyalkenoate cement to enamel and dentin. J Dent. 1987;15:147–152. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(87)90138-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Powis DR, Folleras T, Merson SA, Wilson AD. Improved adhesion of a glass-ionomer cement to dentin and enamel. J Dent Res. 1982;61:1416–1422. doi: 10.1177/00220345820610120801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Aboush YE, Jenkins CB. An evaluation of the bonding of glass-ionomer restoratives to dentin and enamel. Br Dent J. 1986;161:179–184. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4805923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Berry EA, von der Lehr WN, Herrin HK. Dentin surface treatments for the removal of smear layer: An SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987;115:65–67. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1987.0202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Long TE, Duke ES, Nording BK. Polyarcylic acid cleaning of dentin and glass-ionomer bond strength. I Dent Res. 1986;65:345. (Abstr 1583). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different adhesive systems. J Dent Res. 1992;71:1530–1540. doi: 10.1177/00220345920710081301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Inoue S, Van MB, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, et al. Effect of remaining dentin thickness and the use of conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater. 2001;17(5):445–455. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00003-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Microtensile bond strengths of a glass-ionomer (Polyalkenoate) cements to dentine using four conditioners. J Dent. 2000;28(5):361–366. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00009-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Coutinho E, Van LK, De MJ, Poitevin A, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, et al. Development of a self-etch adhesive for resin modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 2006;85(4):349–353. doi: 10.1177/154405910608500413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Uno S. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: Bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 1996;1283:161–166. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(96)80015-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Miyazaki M, Iwasaki K, Onose H, Moore BK. Resin-modified glass-ionomers: effect of dentin primer application on the development of bond strenght. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999;107(5):393–399. doi: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos107511.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wassel RW, Barker D, Steele JG. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: try-in and cementation of crowns. Br Dent J. 2002;193:17–28. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ivanyi I, Balogh AE, Fazekas A, Nyarasdy I. Comparative analysis of pulpal circulatory reaction to an acetone containing and an acetone free bonding agent as measured by vitalmicroscopy. Oper Dent. 2002;27:367–372. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ivanyi I, Balogh AE, Rosivall L, Nyarasdy I. In vivo examination of the Scotchbond multi-purpose dental adhesive system in rat (vitalmicroscopy study) Oper Dent. 2000;25:418–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Munksgaard EC, Asmussen E. Bond strength between dentin and restorative resins mediated by mixture of HEMA and glutaraldehyde. J Dent Res. 1984;63:1087–1089. doi: 10.1177/00220345840630081701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Munksgaard EC, Irie M, Asmussen E. Dentin-polymer bond promoted by Gluma and various resins. J Dent Res. 1985;64:1409–1411. doi: 10.1177/00220345850640121801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kuo SM, Liou CC, Chuag CL, Wang YJ. Studies of the effects of PVA-AE on dentinal bonding of HEMA. J Med Biol Eng. 2001;21:243–248. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annali di Stomatologia are provided here courtesy of CIC Edizioni Internazionali

RESOURCES