J Interdiscip Dentistry
Home | About JID | Editors | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions |
Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 309  | Login  | Contact us | Advertise | Subscribe  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 170-173

A comparative study of shear bond strength of two adhesive liners to nanocomposite


Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Baranya Shrikrishna Suprabha
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-5194.113246

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To compare the shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer and nano-filled flowable composite liners to nanocomposite restorative material. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 24 specimens were prepared in acrylic blocks for the study with 12 in each group. Group I consisted of resin-modified glass ionomer liner (GC Fuji II LC Improved) bonded to a cylinder of nanocomposite (Z350 Universal Restorative) whereas in Group II flowable composite liner (Filtek Z350 Flowable Restorative) was bonded to a cylinder of nanocomposite (Z350 Universal Restorative). Shear bond strength was determined using Instron Universal testing machine. Student's independent sample t test was used for analysis. Results: The mean shear bond strength value of Group I was greater than Group II and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Conclusion: Resin-modified glass ionomer appears to be a more compatible liner under nanocomposite restoration than flowable composite as it exhibited significantly higher shear bond strength. Clinical Relevance to Interdisciplinary Dentistry
  • Resin-modified glass ionomer and flowable composites have been used as liners under resin composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth to compensate for their polymerization shrinkage.
  • Adequate bonding of liners to composites is as important as bonding to dentin for the success of this technique.
  • Bonding of resin-modified glass ionomer liner to nanocomposite restorative material is better than flowable composite liner and hence should be preferred over flowable composite as a liner.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2295    
    Printed54    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded353    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal