International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Shear Peel Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Cements Used for Fixed Space Maintainer Cementation: An In Vitro Study

Jasmeet Kaur, Amitoj Singh, Gunmeen Sadana, Manjul Mehra, Mamta Mahajan

Citation Information : Kaur J, Singh A, Sadana G, Mehra M, Mahajan M. 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

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This study aims to compare the retentive strength of different adhesive cements used for band cementation of fixed space maintainer by comparing the shear peel bond strength and mode of failure for each adhesive material using three different adhesive cements. Materials and methods: Eighty intact extracted teeth were used to assess the shear peel bond strength. Preformed bands were adapted to each tooth. Three cements compared in this in vitro study are glass ionomer cement [Ketac Cem radiopaque (3M ESPE)], resin-modified glass ionomer cement [RelyX luting 2(3M ESPE)], and self-adhesive resin cement [RelyX U200 (3M ESPE)]. The teeth were randomly divided to four groups of 20 samples each. All samples were stored at 37°C for 24 hours before testing. All specimens were tested in a tensile mode using a universal testing machine to determine shear peel bond. After debonding procedure, each specimen was visually assessed at the site of cement. Results: The results of our study showed that the greatest resistance to decementation was shown by self-adhesive resin cement (256.85 N) followed by resin-modified GIC (165.40 N) and GIC (127.40 N) (p < 0.001). Self-adhesive resin cement has the greatest shear peel bond strength (2.36 MPa) followed by resin-modified GIC (1.53 MPa), conventional GIC (1.22 MPa), and bands without cementation (0.29 MPa) (p < 0.001). In terms of adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores, it was seen that the decementation of bands of both conventional GIC and self-adhesive resin cements occurred at the band/enamel interface. However, resin-modified GIC showed varied results in the ARI scores. Conclusion: The findings of our study suggest that self-adhesive resin cements can be used for cementation of bands of fixed space maintainers. However, further research with short-term and long-term data is required to evaluate the ability of these cements for its application in vivo.

  1. Barberia E, Lucavechi T, Cardenas D, et al. Free-end space maintainers: design, utilization and advantage. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006;31(1):5–8. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.31.1.p87112173240x80m.
  2. Setia V, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Space maintainers in dentistry: past to present. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7(10):2402–2405. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6604.3539.
  3. Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, et al. Space maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009;19(3):155–162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00951.x.
  4. Garg A, Samadi F, Jaiswal JN, et al. ‘Metal to resin’: a comparative evaluation of conventional band and loop space maintainer with the fiber reinforced composite resin space maintainer in children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(2):111–116. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.130783.
  5. Prabhakar AR, Mahantesh T, Ahuja V. Comparison of retention and demineralization inhibition potential of adhesive banding cements in primaryteeth. J Dent Child 2010;77(2):66–71.
  6. Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Ertas H, et al. Microleakage of orthodontic band cement at the cement-enamel and cement-band interfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(4):534–539. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.025.
  7. Millett DT, Duff S, Morrison L, et al. In vitro comparison of orthodontic band cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(1):15–20. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.48.
  8. Cantekin K, Delikan E, Cetin S. In vitro bond strength and fatigue stress test evaluation of different adhesive cements used for fixed space maintainer cementation. Eur J Dent 2014;8(3):314–319. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.137632.
  9. Aggarwal M, Foley TF, Rix D. A comparison of shear peel band strengths of 5 orthodontic cements. Angle Orthod 2000;70(4):308–316. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)0702.0.CO;2.
  10. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, et al. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008;10(4):251–258.
  11. Sasa IS, Hasan AA, Qudeimat MA. Longevity of band and loop space maintainers using glass ionomer cement: a prospective study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10(1):6–10. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262659.
  12. Killian CM. Cementation of a fixed orthodontic appliance. Quintessence Int 1991;22(7):547–550.
  13. Millett DT, Kamahli K, McColl J. Comparative laboratory investigation of dual-cured vs. Conventional glass ionomer cements for band cementation. Angle Orthod 1998;68(4):345–350. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)0682.3.CO;2.
  14. Compton AM, Meyers CE, Hondrum SO, et al. Comparison of the shear bond strength of a light cured glass ionomer and a chemically cured glass ionomer for use as an orthodontic bonding agent. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101(2):138–144. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70005-U.
  15. Al-Saleh M, El-Mowafy O. Bond strength of orthodontic bracket with new self-adhesive resin cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(4):528–533. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.027.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.