International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Adhesive Bond Strength of Conventional GIC and Cention N to Enamel and Dentin of Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Kanika Singh Dhull, Brahmananda Dutta, Sushmita Pattnaik, PV Samir, Indira M Devraj

Keywords : Bond strength, Cention N, Fatigue test, Glass ionomer cement

Citation Information : Singh Dhull K, Dutta B, Pattnaik S, Samir P, Devraj IM. Comparative Evaluation of Adhesive Bond Strength of Conventional GIC and Cention N to Enamel and Dentin of Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (4):412-416.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2410

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-12-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the adhesive bond strength of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and Cention N to the primary enamel and dentin using an accelerated fatigue test. Materials and methods: A total of 30 sound human primary molars were collected and were mounted on a metal cylindrical block using acrylic resin, embedding the root up to cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). Proximal box was prepared on both mesial and distal surfaces, one of the cavity was restored with GIC (Type 9) and the other proximal cavity with Cention N. A nonretentive cavity design was followed for both the materials so as to maintain the uniformity between the two specimens were then placed under a universal testing machine (Instron) and subjected to accelerated cyclic loads till a separation fracture occurs at the tooth-restoration interface. The number of endured cycles a particular restoration could withstand before getting fractured was registered. Results: Cention N resisted significantly more number of endured cycles before separation from the cavity as compared to GIC (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that newly developed material Cention N is preferred alternative over conventional GIC for the restoration of proximal cavities in primary molars.

  1. Guideline on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry-AAPD 2020
  2. Taravati S, Amini T, Mohammadi S. Attitude of parents and dentists about the restorative materials used in pediatric dentistry. Medical Science 2020;24(101):397–406.
  3. Jonas A. Rodrigues, Luciano Casagrande, Fernando B. Araújo, Tathiane L. Lenzi, and Adriela A. S. Mariath, Restorative Materials in Pediatric Dentistry, Pediatric Restorative Dentistry, pp.161–167, January 2019. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-93426-6_11
  4. Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry–a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent 1998;20(2):93–100.
  5. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A. Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14(3):233–240. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0335-8
  6. Dhar V, Hsu KL, Coll JA, et al. Evidence-based update of pediatric dental restorative procedures: dental materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;39(4):303–310. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.303
  7. van ‘t Hof MA, Frencken JE, van Palenstein Helderman WH, et al. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for managing dental caries: a meta-analysis. Int Dent J 2006;56(6):345–351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2006.tb00339.x
  8. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? properties, limitations future trends. Materials (Basel) 2010;3:76–96. DOI: 10.3390/ma3010076
  9. White JM, Eakle WS. Rationale and treatment approach in minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;(131):13S–19S. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0394
  10. Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLean ME. Minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(1):87–95. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0021
  11. Scientific Documentation: Cention N Ivoclar Vivadent AG Research & Development Scientific Service October 2016.
  12. Anusavice KJ, et al, “Science of dental materials (12th edition)”. Elsevier, 2012.e
  13. Bilt AVD, Tekamp A, Glas HVD, et al. Bite force and electromyograpy during maximum unilateral and bilateral clenching Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116(3):217–222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00531.x
  14. Owais AI, Shaweesh M, Alhaija ESJA. Maximum occusal bite force for children in different dentition stages. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(4):427–433. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs021
  15. Singh S, Sandhu N, Kashyap R. A study of bite force and various variables in children segregated by angle's classification. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(2):118–123 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1148
  16. Magne P, Schlichting LH, Maia HP, et al. In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104(3):149–157. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60111-4
  17. Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The effect of particle size distribution on an experimental glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater J 2004;21(6):505–510. DOI: 10.1016/
  18. Brandt B, Lohbauer U, Goken M, et al. The influence of particle size on the mechanical properties of dental glass ionomer cements. Adv Eng Mater 2010;12(12):B684–B689. DOI: 10.1002/adem.201080067
  19. Valentini F, Moraes RR, Pereira-Cenci T, et al. Influence of glass particle size of resin cements on bonding to glass ceramic: SEM and bond strength evaluation Microsc Res Tech 2014;77(5):363–367. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22353
  20. Fu SY, Feng XQ, Lauke B, et al. Effects of particle size, particle/matrix interface adhesion and particle loading on mechanical properties of particulate–polymer composites Composites: Part B: Engineering 2008;39(6):933–961. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2008.01.002
  21. Samanta S, Das U, Mitra A. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and Cention N. Imp J Interdiscip Res 2017;8(3):180–183.
  22. Kini A, Shetty S, Bhat R, et al. Microleakage evaluation of an alkasite restorative material: an in vitro dye penetration study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20:1315–1318. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2720
  23. Aakriti, Ruhil J, Bhushan J, et al. To evaluate and compare microleakage in teeth restored with conventional glass ionomer cement and two newer restorative materials EQUIA Forte and Cention N using stereomicroscope. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2020;8(8):163–167. DOI: 10.21276/jamdsr
  24. Chole D, Shah HK, Kundoor S, et al. In vitro comparision of flexural strength of Cention-N, bulk-fill composites, light-cure nanocomposites and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. IOSR J Dentd Med Sci 2018;17(10):79–82.
  25. Iftikhar N, Devashish, Srivastava B, et al. A comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of four different restorative materials: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12(1):47–49. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1592
  26. Kaur M, Mann NS, Jhamb A, et al. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement: an in vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2019;5(1):5–9.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.