Keywords :
Bonded space maintainers, Glass fiber-reinforced composites, Nanofilled, Ormocer
Citation Information :
Barathi D, Jampanapalli SR, Patloth T, Konda S, Inguva H, Shaik H. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Bonded Space Maintainers Using Ormocers, Nanofilled and Glass Fiber-reinforced Adhesive Composites. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (6):695-701.
Background: Space maintainers (SMs) are used to preserve the space created by premature loss of primary teeth. The most commonly used is the band and loop (B&L) SM. As this SM has several drawbacks, such as poor esthetics and gingival health, laboratory procedures for fabrication, and multiple seating procedures, various bonded SMs were introduced. This study aims to compare the shear bond strength of bonded SMs using ormocer, nanofilled, and short glass fiber-reinforced adhesive composites with the conventional B&L SM luted with type I glass ionomer cement (GIC).
Materials and methods: Sixty intact extracted primary molars were randomly divided into four groups (n = 15). In group I (control), conventional B&L SMs were luted with type I GIC, whereas ormocer, nanofilled, and glass fiber-reinforced composites (GFRC) were used to bond the SMs in groups II, III, and IV, respectively. Shear bond strength of all the specimens was analyzed using a universal testing machine, and the obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis.
Results: The highest shear bond strength, that is, 68.82 ± 16.81 MPa, was exhibited by GFRC, followed by 51.04 ± 23.28 MPa with nanofilled composite, 45.3 ± 18.27 MPa with ormocer, and the least in the control group, that is, 42.17 ± 17 MPa.
Conclusion: Glass fiber-reinforced resin composite has better resistance against shear force than the other three study materials, and this was significantly higher (p = 0.001) than conventional B&L SMs.
Mittal S, Sharma A, Sharma AK, et al. Banded versus single sided bonded space maintainers: a comparative study. Indian J Dent Sci 2018;10:29–36. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_76_17
Kirzioglu Z, Ozay MS. Success of reinforced fiber material space maintainers. J Dent Child 2004;71:158–162.
Tyagi M, Rana V, Srivastava N, et al. Comparison of the conventional band and loop space maintainers with modified space maintainers: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):S63–S68. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2046
Safwat EM, Khater AGA, Abd-Elsatar AG, et al. Glass fiber-reinforced composites in dentistry. Bull Natl Res Cent 2021;41:1–9. DOI: 10.1186/s42269-021-00650-7
Behl S, Rajan G, Ellakwa A, et al. Physical and mechanical characterisation of flowable dental composites reinforced with short aspect ratio micro sized S glass fibres. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2020;6:111.
Garoushi S, Gargoum A, Vallittu PK, et al. Short fiber-reinforced composite restorations: a review of the current literature. J Invest Clin Dent 2018;9(3):1–9. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12330
Callaghan DJ, Vaziri A, Nayeb-Hashemi H. Effect of fiber volume fraction and length on the wear characteristics of glass fiber-reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater 2006;22:84–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.011
Preethy NA, Jeevanandam G, Govindaraju L, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of three commercially available esthetic restorative composite materials: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatric Dent 2020;13:635–639. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1849
de Jesus Tavarez RR, dos Santos Almeida LJ, Gaura TCG, et al. Shear bond strength of different surface treatments in bulk fill, microhybrid, and nanoparticle repair resins. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2017;9:61–66. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S135416
Sahoo SK, Meshram GR, Parihar AS, et al. Evaluation of effect of dietary solvents on bond strength of compomer, ormocer, nanocomposite and activa bioactive restorative materials. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2019;9(5):453–457. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_47_19
Kaur H, Singh H, Vinod KS, et al. Shear punch strength evaluation of nanocomposite and compomer, post-conditioning in dietary solvents—an in-vitro study. J oral Biol Craniofac Res 2014;4:30–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2014.02.005
Kalra S, Singh A, Gupta M, et al. Ormocer: an aesthetic direct restorative material; an in vitro study comparing the marginal sealing ability of organically modified ceramics and a hybrid composite using an ormocer-based bonding agent and a conventional fifth-generation bonding agent. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):48–53. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94546
Efes BG, Dorter C, Gomec Y, et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:119–126.
Mahmoud SH, Embaby AE, Abdullah AM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in class I and class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 2013;39(1):32–42.
Zareen SA, Usman JAM, Haribabu R. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three different luting cements toward ceramic and dentin for all ceramic restorations: an in vitro study. J Orofac Res 2013;3(2):86–89.
Kaur J, Singh A, Sadana G. Evaluation of shear peel bond strength of different adhesive cements used for fixed space maintainer cementation: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(2):175–179. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1932
Murthy SS, Murthy GS. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three commercially available glass ionomer cements in primary teeth. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(8):103–107.