International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Esthetic Restorative Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study

Neethu A Preethy, Ganesh Jeevanandan, Lavanya Govindaraju, EMG Subramanian

Keywords : Ceram X, Composite, Esthetic, Restoration, Shear strength, Solare Sculpt,3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT

Citation Information : Preethy NA, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, Subramanian E. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Esthetic Restorative Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (6):635-639.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1849

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-03-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Dental caries remains to be one of the most prevalent diseases encountered in the field of dentistry. Several restorative materials have been introduced with variable properties and among them, composite restorative materials are most widely used nowadays because of their superior esthetic property as well as minimal hard tissue removal. Shear bond strength of a restorative material plays a key role in deciding the restoration\'s longevity. Hence, for a better selection of the composite material, shear bond strength needs to be evaluated. Aim: The study aim was to analyze the shear bond strength of three commercially available esthetic restorative composite materials—Dentsply Ceram X, 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, and GC Solare Sculpt to the tooth surface. Materials and methods: Thirty extracted human mandibular permanent molars that were caries-free were selected and erected in acrylic blocks. The uniform dentinal surface was exposed by cutting with a diamond disk. These were then randomly divided into three groups—groups I, II, and III based on the restorative material which was used, i.e., Ceram X, 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, and Solare Sculpt, respectively. The restorative materials were applied on the dentinal surface of the prepared tooth specimens with the help of plastic molds, followed up by storing them in distilled water until they were subjected to shear bond strength testing. The collected data were examined by applying a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Turkey\'s post hoc test. Results: The Ceram X (21.6155 ± 2.20717) and Solare Sculpt (19.8747 ± 3.99732) were comparable in terms of shear bond strength values; however, they depicted significantly higher bond strength compared to 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT (12.8068 ± 3.99732). Conclusion: Among the three materials compared in this study, Ceram X produced higher shear bond strength to tooth surface when compared to Solare Sculpt and 3M ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT. Clinical significance: Restoration failure continues to be a major problem taking a toll on the dentists’ time and patient satisfaction. Thus, the demand for restorative materials with better shear bond strength as well as excellent esthetics is on the rise. Thus, this particular study compares the shear bond strength of three commercial esthetic nanocomposites.


PDF Share
  1. Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, et al. Global burden of oral conditions in1990–2010: a systematic analysis. J Dent Res 2013;92(7):592–597. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513490168.
  2. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, et al. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 2002;27:117–123.
  3. Ferracane JL. Resin composite—state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):29–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020.
  4. de Moura FRR, Romano AR, Lund RG, et al. Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students. Braz Dent J 2011;22(2):111–116. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402011000200004.
  5. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, et al. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent 2012;40(9):703–710. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.020.
  6. Baldissera RA, Corrêa MB, Schuch HS, et al. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth. J Dent 2013;41(11):1027–1035. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.08.016.
  7. Demarco FF, Baldissera RA, Madruga FC, et al. Anterior composite restorations inclinical practice: findings from a survey with general dentalpractitioners. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21(6):497–504. DOI: 10.1590/1679-775720130013.
  8. Jain G, Narad A, Boruah LC, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three resin based dual-cure core build-up materials: an in-vitro study. J Conserv Dent JCD 2015;18(4):337–341. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.159754.
  9. Ikeda M, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, et al. Bonding durability of single-step adhesives to previously acid-etched dentin. Oper Dent 2008;33(6):702–709. DOI: 10.2341/08-26.
  10. Meerbeek BV, Landuyt KV, Munck JD, et al. Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dent Mater J 2005;24(1):1–13. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.24.1.
  11. Korkmaz Y, Gurgan S, Firat E, et al. Shear bond strength of three different nano-restorative materials to dentin. Oper Dent 2010;35(1):50–57. DOI: 10.2341/09-051-L.
  12. Almuammar MF, Schulman A, Salama FS. Shear bond strength of six restorative materials. J ClinPediatr Dent 2001;25(3):221–225. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.25.3.r8g48vn51l46421m.
  13. Nujella BPS, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):22–26. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94541.
  14. Titley KC, Chernecky R, Rossouw PE, et al. The effect of various storage methods and media on shear- bond strengths of dental composite resin to bovine dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1998;43(4):305–311. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9969(97)00112-X.
  15. Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Composite-composite repair bond strength: Effect of different adhesion primers. J Dent 2003;31(8):521–525. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00093-9.
  16. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TR 11405 Dental Materials-guidance on Testing of Adhesion to Tooth Structure. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1994. pp. 1–13.
  17. Manuja N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian SocPedod Prev Dent 2011;29(1):7–13. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.79913.
  18. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, et al. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2007;23(1):51–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.12.003.
  19. Petronijević B, Marković D, Šarčev I, et al. Fracture resistance of restored maxillary premolars. Contemp Mater 2012;3:219–225.
  20. Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self etching primer in class V cavities: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent JCD 2009;12(4):160–163. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58340.
  21. Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Deutsch AS, et al. Fracture strengths of three core restorative materials supported with or without a prefabricated split-shank post. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78(6):560–565. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70006-4.
  22. Srinivasulu S, Vidhya S, Sujatha M, et al. Shear bond strength of composite to deep dentin after treatment with two different collagen cross-linking agents at varying time intervals. Oper Dent 2012;37(5):485–491. DOI: 10.2341/11-232-L.
  23. Dhanyakumar S. Comparative evaluation of micro-shear bond strength of adhesive resins to coronal dentin versus dentin at floor of pulp chamber - an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2006;9(4):123–130. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.42313.
  24. Tagami J, Tao L, Pashley DH. Correlation among dentin depth, permeability, and bond strength of adhesive resins. Dent Mater 1990;6(1):45–50. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(90)90044-F.
  25. Nishad NT, Sujeer R, Toby TH, et al. Curing efficacy of LED and QTH light curing units for curing nanocomposite resins – a systematic review. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2013;11(2):36–44. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1123644.
  26. Imbery TA, Gray T, DeLatour F, et al. Evaluation of flexural, diametral tensile, and shear bond strength of composite repairs. Oper Dent 2014;39(6):E250–E260. DOI: 10.2341/13-299-L.
  27. Siso SH, Hurmuzlu F. Physical properties of three different types of LC composite resins. Acta Stomatol Croat 2008;42:147–154.
  28. Watts DC, Vogel LK, Maroufi AS. Shrinkage stress reduction in resin-composites of increasing particle concentration [abstract 2444]. J Dent Res 2002;81(2):114–118. DOI: 10.1177/0810114.
  29. El-Sahn NA, El-Kassas DW, El-Damanhoury HM, et al. Effect of C-factor on microtensile bond strengths of low-shrinkage composites. Oper Dent 2011;36(3):281–292. DOI: 10.2341/10-105-L.
  30. Boyer DB, Chalkley Y, Chan KC. Correlation between strength of bonding to enamel and mechanical properties of dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16(6):775–783. DOI: 10.1002/jbm. 820160604.
  31. Rathore VPSS, Hotkar CG, Patel P, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of microfilled & nanofilled composite resin cured under LED: an in-vitro study. IJOCR 2015;3(9):4–7.
  32. Alexander AK, Priya RM, Sarthaj S, et al. Comparitive evaluation of different surface treatments on the repair shear bond strength of three nanohybrid composites: an in-vitro study. Cons Dent Endod J 2018;3(1):22–26.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.