Influence of several materials on the bond strength of glass
Khalid A. Al Wazzar *, BDS, MSc
Hamdi Mohammed Al Tahawi *, DDS, MSc, PhD
AM A. At Haiti **, BDS
' College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
'"Dental Dept., Security Forces Hospital, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
Glass ionomer
(Gl) is a restorative that bonds to dentin by molecular adhesion. During a
dental treatment, several adjunctive materials such as temporary fillings,
cements and intracanal medicaments may be used prior to the placement of Gl
which might adversely influence its adhesion to dentin. The purpose of this
study was to determine the influence of using eugenol containing and eugenol
free zinc oxide temporary cements, calcium hydroxide and iodine potassium
iodide intracanal medicaments, and Epoxy resin sealers on the adhesion of
Ketac-Silver Aplicap, to dentin. Sixty dentin specimens were prepared and
divided to six groups. Each of the five groups was treated with one of the
adjunctive materials for one week. The adjunctive material was removed and
dentin cleaned with pumice-water slurry, etched, rinsed thoroughly and dried
with air. Ketac-silver short cylinders were formed on the dentin between two
sliding surface; a specially designed testing apparatus. The two sliding
surfaces were pulled apart using a testing machine and the debonding force was
recorded. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple range test were
used to analyze the data. While the debonding force was 2.2MPa for the control,
it was 2.03,2.09,2.00, and 2.16 MPa for specimens subjected to four of the
adjunctive materials and there were no statistically significant differences (P
< 0.05). The only adjunctive material that caused significant difference in
the bond strength between Ketac-Silver and dentin (an improvement) was epoxy
resin sealer (AH-26) yielding a debonding value of 3.50
Mpa.
Glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements,
introduced by Wilson and Kent,1 are water based. They are derivatives of
silicate and zinc polycarboxylate cements consisting of ion-leachable glass
powder and polyalkeonic acid. The result of the interaction between the two
constituents is a hard cement composed of glass particles surrounded and
supported by a matrix arising from the dissolution of the surface of the glass
particles in the acid.
Chemical bonding
between glass polyalkenoate cements and dentin or enamel has been well documented.2 The cements are also
reported to adhere to a number of other substrates such as stainless steel,
tin, tin-oxide plated platinum or gold but not to porcelain, pure platinum or
pure gold.3 Nonetheless, a glass
polyalkeonate luting cement enhanced the retention of gold alloy castings when
compared with traditional luting cements.4
In addition to chemical bonding of glass polyalkenoate cements to
cavity walls, the continuity of such bonding is assured. The bond between glass
polyalkeonate and tooth material is a dynamic one with adhesive bonds being
continually broken and reformed as chemical (ion-exchange and water transfer)
and biological changes take place.5 Other advantages of glass polyalkenoate
materials is the release of fluoride6 which leaches into
the tooth structure interfacing the restoration,7 inhibiting recurrent caries,8 and aiding
remineralization.9 The materials also have low thermal
conductivity and a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to that of tooth
structure.10
Glass polyalkenoates, because of their adhesive characteristics
and other advantages have gained wide use in dental practice. The materials are
primarily used as a permanent cement, as a base band as a class V filling
material. They are also used to build cores, to seal occlusal fissures and as
endodontic sealers.10 Any of these dental procedures usually
requires the use of other materials prior to using the glass polyalkeonate. The
influence of these other materials on the adhesive potential of the glass
polyalkeonate to dentin needs to be studied.
The bonding potential of dental adhesive materials to enamel and
dentin is quite sensitive to the prior management of the tooth surface. The
effect of several materials on the bond strength of resin composite to dentin
had been well studied as reported in the literature. Summitt et al11 studied the effect of
air/water rinse versus water only and rinsing times on resin to etched-enamel
bond strength. Gwinnett12 studied strength of bonding of composite resin
to dentin after air drying and re-wetting. Macchi et al13 studied the influence of
several endodontic materials on the bonding of composite resin to dentin. The
influence of saliva, plasma, zinc oxide-eugenol cement, non-eugenol zinc oxide
cement and handpiece lubricant on bonding composite resin to dentin was studied
by Powers et al.14 Tam and Pilliar15 studied the influence of conditioning acid
when air dried on the bond strength of dentin-composite resin adhesive
interface. The effect of etchant type, surface moisture, and resin composite
type on the shear bond strength of three dentin adhesives was studied by
Perdigao et al.16 The influence of eugenol in reducing the bond
strength between composite resin and dentin
is reported. 13,17,18
In as much as enamel and dentin surface treatment influences their
adhesion to composite resins, it is likely to influence their adhesion to
glass-ionomer cements. Studies to substantiate or vitiate this conclusion are
sparse. Capurro et al19 found that IRM, Grossman Cement,
Dycal and Cavit had no effect on the bonding of glass ionomer cement to dentin.
The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of five
materials including temporary cements, intracanal medicaments and sealer cement
materials on the bond strength of Ketac-Silver (a glass-ionomer restorative) to
dentin.
A glass polyalkeonate material with proven chemical adhesion to
dentin, used for core buildup, was selected for this study (Ketac-Silver
Aplicap ESPE Premiere, Norristown,
PA, USA).
Five materials were used as potential contaminants that may interfere with the
glass-ionomer's adhesion to dentin. These were: eugenol-free zinc oxide
temporary cement (Temp-Bond NE, Kerr, Romulus, Ml, USA), eugenol containing
temporary cement (Temp-Bond, Kerr); a calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] paste packed in anesthesia cartridges (Calasept, Scania Dental
AB, Knivsta, Sweden); biphenol A- diglycidylether based root canal sealing and
filling material, an epoxy resin (AH-26, Dentsply Detrey, Konstanz, Germany);
and a laboratory prepared 2% Iodine Potassium Iodide (IPI) solution, commonly
used as an intracanal medicament.20
Fabrication of test specimens
A previously used apparatus to prepare testing specimens was used.18 Each specimen consisted of
parts A and B. The configuration of each specimen is illustrated in Fig. 1. The
A portion of the specimen was fabricated by embedding a freshly extracted human
permanent molar tooth into acrylic resin (Orthoresin; De Trey Dentsply
S.A., Bois Coiombes, France), which was then sectioned to a disc 33 mm in
diameter and 5 mm thick. Both sides of each disc were flattened. The solid
caries-free dentinal surface of the embedded tooth was exposed in one side of
the disc. Specimen sectioning and flattening were accomplished by using a fine
diamond disc (Brasseler GmbH, Lemgo,
Germany). An
opening, 5 mm in diameter, was placed in the acrylic to facilitate mounting on
the testing machine (Fig. 2).
The second component (part B) of each specimen was fabricated
based on the testing apparatus designed by Hammad et al21,22 Only the B portion of
Hammad's testing device was used in this study. It was fabricated by machining
sheets of solid Delrin (Almac Plastics, Minneapolis,
MN) acrylic resin to conform
precisely to the diagram depicted in Fig. 1. Part B was cast in a base-metal
alloy (Wirron 99, Bego, Germany) following the
manufacturer's instructions. Part B served as a matrix to hold the Ketac-Silver
in position during bonding procedures and provided a means of attaching the
specimen to the debonding device (Figs. 2 and 3).
Specimen preparation and material application
Sixty specimens (part A) were fabricated and divided randomly into
six groups of 10 each. The teeth in group 1 received no contaminant and served
as a control. In groups 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the dentin was coated with Temp-Bond NE,
Temp-Bond, IPI, AH-26, or Ca (OH)2, respectively.
Manufacturer's instructions were followed carefully. After contaminant
application and setting, the specimens
were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 1 week. Following
storage, contaminants were removed from the dentin, except for the IPI group,
using a Hollenback carving instrument. The exposed dentin surfaces of all six
groups were cleaned with pumice-water slurry and a prophylaxis rubber cup
mounted on a slow-speed handpiece. Specimens were then rinsed thoroughly with
distilled water and dried with air. ESPE Ketac conditioner was then applied
over the dentin surface for 10 seconds then thoroughly rinsed with distilled
water for 30 seconds and dried with air. The matrix of each specimen (part B)
was aligned over the dentin surface of its corresponding part A and then filled
with Ketac-Silver Aplicap core material using the syringe procedure (Fig. 3).
The core material was used according to the manufacturer's recommendation and
applied to all groups. Specimens were left undisturbed until complete setting
was attained. The specimens were allowed to set according to the manufacturer's
instructions. All specimens were fabricated by one investigator.
Method of testing
The longitudinal ends of parts A and B of each specimen were
mounted by means of hooks attached to the upper and lower jaws of a universal
testing of an Accuforce Elite test machine (Model E500, Ametek, Largo, FL, USA).
Force was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.05 in/min until failure occurred
(Fig. 4). The presence of two flexible
joints, coupled with the slow loading, permitted the specimen to align itself
to a uniaxial direction during testing procedures. However, because the bonding
interface was not aligned at the middle of the thickness of each specimen,
forces were not primarily directed at the dentin-core material interface, and
thus forces were directed diagonally. This developed a combination of shear and
tensile stresses to simulate complex clinical stress situations. All testings
were performed by one investigator. The data obtained were analyzed
statistically using a one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test.
The bond strength results for the five experimental groups and the
control are shown in Table 1. The table suggests that except for AH26, the use
of the four other materials caused little change in the adhesion of
Ketac-Silver to dentin.
Before selecting the proper statistical tests, it was necessary to
test the homogeneity of the variances
obtained with the
various groups. Homogeneity of variance
test was significant; however, not significant enough to preclude using a
parametric one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results of parametric
one-way ANOVA is depicted in Table 2. The test showed highly significant
differences between groups at (P<0.001)
Due to the mild significance of the variance homogeneity test, it
was felt necessary to also use non-parametric ANOVA. The results of
non-parametric ANOVA, also showed highly significant differences between the
groups at (P < 0.001). Tukey's post hoc test showed that the bond strength
of Ketac-silver to dentin treated by AH-26 was significantly higher than that
for dentin treated with all other materials and than that for untreated dentin
(the control) as illustrated in Table 1.
In the present study, the contaminants applied to dentin were kept
on it for one week and then removed by carving followed by pumice-water slurry
and thoroughly rinsed with water. This procedure did not achieve the
decontaminated dentin surface which could have facilitated adherence of resin
composite to dentin. 13,14,18 Accordingly, one may safely
conclude that traces of these contaminants did remain on the dentin surfaces.
As Table 1 shows, four of the contaminants had no effect on the strength of the
bond between the glass-ionomer and dentin suggesting that the glass-ionomer
liquid, a polyacrylic acid, dissolved away the traces of the contaminants thus
eliminating their effect in reducing the bond strength. Similar finding was
reported by Capurro et al.19 Further, when three polyacrylic acid etchants
were used, the bond strength between glass-ionomer cement and dentin was
increased23 emphasizing the etching and
thorough cleaning ability of the polyacrylic acid.
On the other hand, the use of AH-26, an epoxy resin, as a
contaminant caused an unexpected increase in the bond strength between the
glass-ionomer cement and the dentin (Table 1). This increase suggests that the
traces of AH-26 remaining on the specimens of this study after cleaning were
not dissolved by the polyacrylic acid of the glass-ionomer cement. This
explanation is quite reasonable when one considers that AH-26 was found to be
extremely difficult to dissolve except with chloroform applied for more than 30
minutes.24
The presence of these traces of AH-26 increased the bond strength
between the dentin and the glass ionomer cement. This increase suggests that
AH-26 attaches to dentin with more strength than does the glass-ionomer. Other
studies showed that canal sealed with AH-26 leaks less than those sealed with
Ketac-endo (a glass-ionomer) suggesting that AH-26 attaches to the dentin even
stronger than to the glass ionomer.25
Our data suggests that remnants of most contaminants used on
dentin before using a glass-ionomer cement are not likely to influence its
bonding to dentin, since the liquid of the cement dissolves them away. However,
remnants of AH-26 are not dissolved by the liquid of the glass-ionomer and
their presence enhance the glass-ionomer cement bond to dentin.
- Remnants of zinc oxide, eugenol, iodine potassium iodide and
calcium hydroxide appear not to influence the bond strength of Gl to dentin
when polyacrylic acid is used as a conditioner.
-
Remnants of AH-26
enhance the Gl bond to dentin and do not dissolve by polyacrylic acid.
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dr. Nazeer Khan
for performing the necessary statistics and analysis. This paper was presented
during the 11th Saudi International Dental Meeting
(Feb.26-March02,2000).
- Wilson AD and Kent BE. The glass ionomer cement: A new translucent dental filling material. J Appl Chem Biotechnol1971; 21:313-318.
- Wilson AD, Crisp S and Lewis BG. Experimental luting agents based on the glass-ionomer cements. Brit Dent J 1977; 142:117-122.
- Holtz P, McLean JW, Sced 1 and Wilson AD. The bonding of glass-ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Brit DentJ 1977; 142:41-47.
- McComb D. Retention of castings with glass-ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 48:285-288.
- Wilson AD, Prosser R and Powis DM. Mechanism of adhesion of polyelectrolyte cements of hydroyapatite. J Dent Res 1983; 62:590-592.
- Swartz ML, Phillips RW and Clark HE. Long-term fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1984; 63:158-160.
- Retief DH, Bradley EL and Dentone JC et al. Enamel and cementum fluoride uptake from glass-ionomer cement. Caries Res 1984; 16:250-257.
- TyasMJ. Cariostatic effect of glass-ionomer cement. A five year clinical study. Aust Dent J 1991; 36: 236-239.
- Berg JH, Donly KJ and Posnick WR. Glass ionomer-silver restoration: A demineralization-remineralization concept. Quint Int 1988; 19: 639-641.
- Craig RG. Cements: Restorative Dental Materials. 10th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby, 1997:172-208.
- Summitt JB, Chan DC, Burgess JO et al. Effect of air/water rinse versus water only and of five rinse times on resin-to-etched-enamel shear bond strength. Oper Dent 1992; 17:142-151.
- Gwinnett AJ. Dentin bond strength after air drying and rewetting. Am J Dent 1994; 7:144-148.
- Macchi RL, Capurro MA and Herrera CL et al. Influence of endodontic materials on the bonding of composite resin to dentin. Endod Dent Traumatol 1992;8:26-29.
- Powers JM, Finger WJ and Xie J. Bonding of composite resin to contaminated human enamel and dentin. J Prosthodont 1995; 4: 28-32.
- Tarn LE and Pilliar RM. Effect of dentin surface treatments on the fracture toughness and tenshil bond strength of a dentin-composite adhesive interface. J Dent Res 1994;73:1530-1538.
- Perdigao J, Swift EJ and Cloe BC. Effects of etchants, surface moisture, and resin-composite on dentin bond strengths. Am J Dent 1993; 6:61-64.
- Tjan AHL and Nemetz H. Effect of eugenol-containing endodontic sealer on retention of pre-fabricated posts luted with an adhesive composite resin cement. Quint Int 1992; 23: 839-844.
- Al Wazzan KA, Al Harbi AA and Hammad IA. The effect of eugenol-containing temporary cement on the bond strength of two resin composite core materials to dentin. J Prost hodont 1997; 6:37-42.
- Capurro MA, Herrera CL and Machhi RL. Influence of endodontic materials on the bonding of glass ionomer cement to dentin. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993; 2: 75-76.20.
- Ingle Jl and Bakland LK. Intercanal Medicaments. In Endodontics, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Williams and Wilkins, 1985:627-640.
- Hammad IA and Stein RS. A qualitative study for the bond and color of ceramometals. J Prosthet Dent 1990;58:431-437.
- Hammad IA and Talic YF. Design of bond strength tests for metal-ceramic complexes: Review of the literature.J Prosthet Dent1996; 75:602-608.
- Joynt RB, Davis EL and Wieczowski G et al. Effect of dentinal pretreatment on bond strength between glass-ionomer cement and dentin. Oper Dent 1990; 15:173-177.
- Hansen MG. Relative efficiency of solvents used in endodontics.J Endod 1998; 24:38-40.
- De Gee AJ, Wu MK and WesseLink PR. Sealing properties of Ketac-Endo glass-ionomer cement and AH-26 root canal sealer
|