Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study
Citation Information :
Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R, Kaur G, Suprabha BS. Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025; 18 (1):70-74.
Aim and background: The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns.
Materials and methods: This in vitro study consisted of 48 samples divided into four groups. Type I glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were used to cement stainless steel (SS) bands over SSCs and Bioflx crowns. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing apparatus. To determine the degree of significance, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc Tukey's test, and a p-value maintained at ≤0.05 were utilized.
Results: The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC.
Conclusion: The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns.
Clinical significance: The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs.
Kameli S, Khani F, Bahraminasab M, et al. Bond strength and microleakage of different types of cement in stainless steel crown of primary molar teeth. Dent Res J 2021;18:58.
Kalaskar R, Ijalkar R, Kalaskar A, et al. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of different luting cements for cementation of stainless steel bands on primary molar crowns (stainless steel and zirconia crowns): an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(6):762–767. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2003
Kids-e-Dental. (2025). BioFlx Crowns. [online] Available from https://www.kidsedental.com/bio-flx. [Last assessed January, 2025].
Christensen JR, Fields HW. Space maintenance in the primary dentition. In: Casamassimo PS, Fields HW, McTigue DJ, Nowak A, editors. Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy Through Adolescence. 5th ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.; 2012. pp. 425–426.
Beemer R, Jack L, Harold E. Orthodontic band retention on primary molar stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 1993;15(6):408–413.
Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, et al. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(6):616–620. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70195-2
Bawazir OA, Elaraby A, Alshamrani H, et al. Effect of sandblasting and type of cement on the bond strength of molar bands on stainless steel crowns. J Dent Child(Chic) 2015;82(2):64–69.
Nujella BP, 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
Messer LB, Levering NJ. The durability of primary molar restorations: II. Observations and predictions of success of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 1988;10(2):81–85.
Parisay I, Khazaei Y. Evaluation of retentive strength of four luting cements with stainless steel crowns in primary molars: an in vitro study. Dent Res J 2018;15(3):201–207.
Chandra V, Babaji P, Shashibhushan KK, et al. An in vitro comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N, FujiCEM 2 with a conventional glass ionomer cement. Int J ApplDent Sci 2022;8(4): 108–112. DOI: 10.22271/oral.2022.v8.i4b.1634
GC FujiCEM® 2. (2025). Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer. [online] Available from https://www.gc.dental/america/products/operatory/cements/gc-fujicem-2. [Last accessed January, 2025].
Braz R, Sinhoreti MA, Spazzin AO, et al. Shear bond strength test using different loading conditions: a finite element analysis. Braz J Oral Sci 2010;9(4):439–442. DOI: 10.20396/BJOS.V9I4.8641727
Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: evaluation over a period of 5 years. ASDC J Dent Child 2002;69(2):156–160.
Yoneda S, Morigami M, et al. Short-term clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cement. Quintessence Int 2005;36(1):49–53.
Tyagi M, Rana V, Srivastava N, et al. Comparative evaluation of different properties of various luting agents used for cementing stainless steel bands on molars. an ex-vivo study. EC Dent Sci 2009;18(5):934–942.
Millett DT, Cummings A, Letters S, et al. Resin-modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation?-an in vitro evaluation. Eur J Orthod 2003;25(6):609–614. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/25.6.609
